Jump to content

Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Teen TItans TV series

IN the artical it is written that AKiva Goldsman is in talks to develop a Teen Titans movie, but he is in the walks of developing a live action TV series for the channel TNT. is that now a mistake for Akiva being in talks for the movie??? Poroboros (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The solo Batman and Superman films

The article mentions there is another Batman and Superman film in development, which is correct. However it then states it will be released between 2016 and 2020, which most certainly has not been confirmed (it certainly isn't on the linked article).

I'm certain I've seen an article somewhere stating this more explicitly that there is a strict two film a year schedule being maintained until 2020, which I will have a look for, but that comment as it stands certainly isn't confirmed. Ruffice98 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've managed to track down the original source, and it seems a tad contradictory. It seems to confirm the Batman and Superman films will indeed be released in that time frame, but that these are part of the ten films they've announced, which clearly isn't the case. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Man of Steel prequel series

David S Goyer is developing a prequel series for Man of Steel called Krypton, being set 20 years before the destruction of Krypton and Supermans father as the main character. So could that be added???? Poroboros (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Krypton prequel series has only been rumored. Nothing is confirmed. Here are sources: source 1 - source 2 2601:C:780:234:98F3:9670:3BCD:BA95 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Series has been confirmed to be in development so I added the information to the page for ya buddy. 2601:C:780:234:B027:24E4:1F98:A860 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

SHAZAM not set in the DCCU..

Here's the source. Shouldn't his comment about SHAZAM not being a Justice League character be a clear indication that he won't be in Justice League, and that New Line is releasing it separately with the tone of it being fun and a different. 2601:C:780:234:8461:798B:521B:8F0A (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt prove sh*t. it just says Shazam will be different from the other movies in the DC cinematic multiverse. nowhere it says it is not part of the slate and that it isnt connected. Poroboros (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC
so by what you're saying, him not being a JUSTICE LEAGUE CHARACTER and the film having a COMPLETELY different tone than what the DC Cinematic Univere films are going for (I.E. dark, broading, and 'less-jokes') qualifies it to be in the same shared universe as the others when that source clearly states it to be not released under the Warner Bros banner, but under the New Line banner. I'd rather have someone weigh in on this other than you Poroboros. You've lashed out at other users, and you use profanity for no reason. To your point, where does it specifically say that it IS indeed part of the 'slate' and that it IS connected? Can you show me that proof? I'd be happy to debate this further with you, but, I'd rather someone with real authority come in, like TrippleThreat to decide if the SHAZAM film should be taken off the SHARED universe slate. 2601:C:780:234:8461:798B:521B:8F0A (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
excuse meee princes, but when did I lash out at other users?? when I lash out at other users and later when it is confirmed I am wrong, I apologize. and what profanity?? its god damn censored. there is no proof that Shazam is not in the DCCM. the movie was confirmed in the slate of the 11 shared universe movies. up until Snyder, Nolan, Goyer or any boss at Warner bros. say this "Yep, shazam is not in the DC Cinematic mutliverse", it wont be removed. Him not being a JL character, might mean that Shazam wont be in the Justice LEague movies. Guardians of the galaxy is in the MCU and they wont be in the avengers 2, so does that mean that GotG is not part of the MCU? no.Poroboros (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The film can't be set in something that doesn't exist. For now we only have the slate that was announced together, and we know that WB/DC are setting up some form of shared universe. When we have confirmation that there is a DCCU, we will most likely get confirmation of what is and isn't in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
the Guardians aren't in Avengers 2 because they aren't needed in that film. It's already been talked about that the Guardians of the Galaxy may be in the Infinity War Films, and yeah, the Guardians are set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe regardless of them being in an Avengers film so your point on that front is moot. Very moot. It's like saying "oh since the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. cast isn't in Avengers 2 and Daredevil... you see my point... Anyway, Although they've been announced with the slate of upcoming DC films doesn't mean that it is set in the same Universe, as I've stated before. 2601:C:780:234:98F3:9670:3BCD:BA95 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that is exactly the proof you are looking for then, characters don't need to be in the crossover movies to be part of the shared universe (I also doubt the Suicide Squad will be members of the Justice League, but we have reports that seemingly confirm it is at least intended to be part of the shared universe). While it doesn't necessarily mean they are set in the same universe, your evidence equally doesn't disprove it. It is on the slate of films, and so it is safe to assume that it will be part of it, until anything is said to the contrary (I would point out that the films we definitely know aren't set in this shared universe were deliberately left off the slate of films, so why would this one have been any different?) Ruffice98 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Dark Universe / Justice League Dark has been confirmed to be part of the DCCU, so saying that Shazam is most definitely part of the DCCU just because it was released with the slate of DC shared universe films being release between 2016-2020, then we can jus throw everything we know about it out the window (kidding). But on a serious note, We still don't know what films are part of the shared universe. We'll have to wait and see if, and when, Jesse is confirmed as Lex in Suicide Squad. 2601:C:780:234:B027:24E4:1F98:A860 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Suicide Squad movie wikipedia page

Ok, I just now saw that there is a wikipedia page for Marvels Captain Marvel even if the movie is gonna be released in 2018. Why doesnt the suicide squad movie have a wikipedia page??? there are enough information for there to be a wikipedia page.Poroboros (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is this Captain Marvel page? If one does exist, it shouldn't. We only start film pages when the film begins principle photography, not when we get close-ish to the release date. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Poroboros: Please read WP:NFF for your inquiry. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, where is this Captain Marvel page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I apologize, i read it wrong on my phone. Its a draft for the page, not a real article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Captain_Marvel_(film) Sorry, again. Carry onPoroboros (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

production companies removed

Just a question: why were they removed and switched with information that is already on a table??The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK never mind. thanks. The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cast order

@Sock: I understand that you feel the chronological order looks better, but we can't go solely on aesthetics. To someone not knowledgeable about this topic, who is looking to learn about it, the fact that they are listed chronologically will not necessarily be clear. They could easily think that the characters are listed in order of importance or something like that, which we don't want people to think. With alphabetical order, it is clear why they are in the order that they are, and there is no bias or perceived bias on our part. We didn't do it this way for the MCU pages because we thought it looked better, and we didn't do it here because we thought it looked better. It just makes more sense, at least to me anyway, to do it like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

how about splitting the table in 2: heroes/villains and non-heroes. and then put them into alphabetical order??? thats my idea, please dont kill meThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Barry Allen

I might be mistaken, but if I recall correctly Ezra Miller was announced as 'The Flash', we still don't know for sure if he'll be Barry Allen or Wally West (though is likely that he's Barry, he haven't got official word yet). 186.134.67.124 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

He was announced as the Barry Allen version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Lin as the producer of Suicide Squad

Why is dan lin and Lin Pictures constantly being removed from the producer and production company table??? it was confirmed that he is one of the producers and that Lin Pictures is one of the co-production companies. so why????The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Production company section of the movie table

Ok now the production company section is back. ok. great. I like it that way. but can we debate on whether it will remain or if it is going to be deleted again??The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Suicide Squad segregation

Why are the Suicide Squad actors and actresses not in the character table? I know it's about villains but they should still at least have a mention of their film in there

66.203.18.56 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Currently the table is only being used to show characters who are confirmed to appear in more than one film in the DC Comics' shared universe films. Once Jared Leto, Will Smith et al are confirmed to appear in a movie other than Suicide Squad, they will be added to the list.
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Batman is confirmed to cameo, so Suicide Squad should DEFINITELY be featured on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.193.1 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom? Cite a source, please. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been confirmed only by set photos, I don't think it's enough yet to add it to the list (though it eventually will). Patience. 186.134.23.194 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lots of random non-DC or DCCU films in the "Other potential projects" section

Not sure why they're in there but seems like a bunch of movies added because they're connected to comics and not the DCCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Grebe (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is why they are listed under "potential projects" rather than just future films. Because there is a chance that they will be a part of it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
But why are movies like Lobo and Green Arrow: Escape from Super Max there when they are dead?? they were supposed to be started development 6 to 7 years ago, but it never got the greenlight. It makes sense for Justice League Dark, Hawkman and Metal Men movie to be here, but Green Arrow and Lobo?? no senseThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2015

The following is a closed 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: moved. No rationale has been presented or is here seen to have justified a move from the original title. (non-admin closure) GregKaye 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


DC Comics' cinematic universe films → DC Comics' shared universe films – This page was recently moved without discussion (cut-and-past move, followed by a histmerge). I am requesting that it moved back to its original location, so that a proper discussion can take place. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) – TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Also: List of DC Comics' cinematic universe films actors → List of DC Comics' shared universe films actors

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2015 (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.

Title change

I say we change this sections title to DC Cinematic Universe.

 Not done We don't use nicknames, or rip off other universe's names. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

that is all fine and dandy, but who came up with the name DC Comics shared universe films?? Did David S goyer, Zack snyder or anyone at WB come up with that or did some dude made up the name to transit it from the Marvel Cinematic universe??Poroboros (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me? "DC Comics' shared universe films" sounds like a formal way to refer to something not yet officially titled, while "DC Cinematic Universe" is explicitly a nickname. I can consider "DC Comics' shared universe films" similar to something like "Untitled Planet of the Apes sequel" rather than Planet of the Apes 2. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, "DC Comics' shared universe films" isn't the actual name, it is just a term explaining what it is until there is an actual, official name. And for those saying that the WP:COMMON NAME is "DC Cinematic Universe", how can something that doesn't exist have a common name? All we have is confirmation that these films will be made, and that some of them will crossover. Also, we are in WP:NORUSH, so it isn't like the name needs to be changed any time soon. Just wait until some more official announcements are made. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
My money is actually on this becoming the "DC Cinematic Multiverse" as that is a word Johns stated, though he did not use all three together. However, as has been stated, we are in WP:NORUSH and this is the most accurate title we can give this, if and when DC ever decides to officially title this universe. And they very well may not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I find this article very interesting. Are there any sources that can tell us whether this is a DC shared universe and also what makes Marvel cinematic universe official? Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Trivial Easter Eggs

An anonymous user, 189.203.12.118, keeps attempting to add trivial Easter Eggs and references from DC Comics-based films to the Development section of the article (his/her latest edits: [1] [2]). Despite having been reverted by myself and at least one other editor, the user continues to try and add the references to the section. I thought I might as well bring this to the Talk Page to avoid edit warring. I'm obviously against having the Easter Egg references in the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Total agreement with you Darkknight. If you feel it's warranted, try requesting page protection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a part of the Development. Like Nick Fury at the end of Iron Man

No it's not. All of those existed before the concept was devised for a shared universe, and do not represent a shared universe amongst the films at that time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The concepto was devised because of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcoalt (talk • contribs)

Can you cite a reliable source that can support that? DonQuixote (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes Iron Man and Arrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcoalt (talk • contribs)

So....a quote supporting your claim would be nice.... DonQuixote (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested correction

Can you call it the dc extended universe Q m356 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It has happened. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Booster Gold/Blue Beetle movie

There are several sources reporting that Warner bros is developing a Booster Gold/Blue Beetle team up movie, with Greg Berlanti as the director and Zeck Pen as the writer. Is this just a rumor or is this legit now???!! These are the sources: - http://www.tracking-board.com/exclusive-warner-bros-developing-booster-goldblue-beetle-movie-with-greg-berlanti-helming/ - http://screenrant.com/booster-gold-blue-beetle-movie-warner-bros/ - http://batman-news.com/2015/09/17/report-warner-bros-is-working-on-a-booster-goldblue-beetle-team-up-movie/Phoenix (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it has not been officially confirmed to be in development. Regardless, the possibility of the film is acknowledged at the Other potential projects section of the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is only one source, the Tracking Board one, which is unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Krypton TV series

Ok, I see that someone already tried to add Krypton on this page but it was removed because Goyer never said before Man of Steel, but, this source says that it is BEFORE man of steel: http://comicbook.com/2015/10/22/david-goyer-says-krypton-takes-place-200-years-before-man-of-ste/ so, what is it now?!?!Phoenix (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This source fails WP:RS, except for exclusives. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)7
but how?!?! He said at the end its 200 years Man of Steel. isnt that enough??Phoenix (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is never explicitly stated that Krypton is set in the DC Extended Universe. The only thing we have to go on is that David Goyer casually stated that the series is "200 years before Man of Steel" without any elaboration, and that simply isn't enough to go on. Other than this, there has been absolutely nothing to suggest that the series is connected to Man of Steel. For all we know, Goyer could have meant that the series is set 200 years before the time period of Man of Steel. As always, we are not in a hurry. We need to wait for someone to officially come out and say that Krypton is a prequel to Man of Steel. Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Official name may have been given

Okay. I'm prefacing this with NOBODY JUMP THE GUN! PLEASE! Let's discuss and give it a few days to make sure this is indeed correct. Now, this write up from Entertainment Weekly announcing BvS on their cover uses the term "DC Extended Universe™". The biggest thing there to note that is different this time is the use of the "TM" after the name. Now, this could just be EW adding this to say "Hey, this is a term we are using, so we're putting the TM mark to state that." Or, it very well could be DC's official term. I'm planning to pick up this issue to see what they say about BvS (as I'm sure some of you may do too), so I think it would be beneficial to see if this term is used in their report, and in what context. And once again, LET'S NOT JUMP THE GUN ON A PAGE MOVE! Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Good find, but I don't think EW would take the time, or even if its legally possible to trade mark a name for a property that doesn't belong to them. But I agree we should wait for some more uses.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If it was EW's doing, I didn't take it as they actually trademarked it. Just how publications sometime throw it in there for terms or phrases they personally create to use to describe something. But then again, that may create actual legal trouble... regardless, I'm hoping to get the issue, and will read what they say and see how and if it is used in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone actually get the issue to see about this? I haven't had the chance to pick it up yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, let's wait and see.. I haven't been able to pick up the issue either,but I will do so on Friday. Npamusic (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the various figures displayed at Comic-Con show a logo that says "DC Comics Multiverse", as can be seen here. Not suggesting we put that in, but it casts a hint of doubt on the name. Sock (tock talk) 16:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sock. Well the article doesn't use it as the online article does. It says: "A week before EW visited the set last fall, Warner Bros. unfurled its plans to release 10 DC movies in the next five years-a blueprint for an extended universe." I'm going to try to do some type of mention of all this in the coming days. Just getting back from a wikibreak, so getting in the swing of things again. It's on my to do list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The DC Comics Multiverse doesn't refer to specifically this universe. It refers to the multiple universes created over the years. The figures for Superman, Superman II, Batman, and Batman Returns also show the "DC Comics Multiverse" logo, as seen here as well as the figures for Batman: Arkham City and Batman: Arkham Origins, as seen here. Dash9Z (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification Dash. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Zack Synder was the one who called it the DC Extended Universe. I believe it holds weight to change the page name to that. Npamusic (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Where can we find this? I searched for Snyder and DC Extended Universe on Google extensively, and found no official word. Sock (tock talk) 14:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the source of the name. I don't think it's conclusive from the context that it's the official title of the series, though. —Flax5 14:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sock, don't know where Npa found this. Flax, that was the link that started this discussion, and is on the page already, noted correctly. (as an FYI) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys! Here are the sources: source1/source2 I was waiting for the article to be released. In the mag, he calls it the 'DC Extended Universe'. Npamusic (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Npamusic: Okay, so now we are definitely getting warmer. However, do you have access to the actual article to see the direct quote from Snyder? If he is quoted as such (which those two sources look to confirm, but just want to be 100%), I'd say we start a discussion on possibly moving the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I personally have not had a chance to pick up the mag, no, but I had a friend pick it up and he told me that Snyder says the phrase "DC Extended Universe". I'll keep digging for more sources on the subject.Npamusic (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't really need any more third party sources, as the two you got are great. Just the primary source to see how Empire uses the phrases or quotes Snyder. That's just to make sure we are 100% correct in justifying a move, as stated above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be renamed "DC Extended Universe"??? Warner bros and DC kind off always said DC Extended Universe during comic con every time refering to the universe. so......The Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source, then the process can begin. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read the Empire issue and this looks legitimate, so I'm going to be bold and make the page move, plus add this info to the article. Snyder doesn't explicitly say this, but the way it is used by Empire makes it seem like this was told to them, not something they created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the page move for now but, if the name somehow turns out to be something else, we'll obviously have to move it again. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But how I read its use in Empire, I think it will be sticking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Is there a chance we have jumped the gun on this one? During the recent "Dawn of the Justice League" TV special they did not once refer to this as the DCEU, but rather on four occasions used the term "The Justice League Universe". Equally, in the original press release for the special they referred to it as the "DC Films Universe" and in the advert for the special Kevin Smith calls it the "DC Films Cinematic Universe". That is not to say that any of these are the official title, but surely it is more the case that if they actually had settled on "DCEU" as the preferred terminology, you would have thought they would be consistent in its use.82.4.200.135 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Justice League Dark movie info

so................why is info based on the Justice League movie being ignored?? like that filming is scheduled to start next year [3], characters who are talking about playing the heroes (Colin Farrell as Constantine, Ron Perlman as Swamp Thing, Monica Belluci and Ewan McGregor )[4] or that 2 directors are in talks to direct: Fede Alvarez or Aharon Keshales & Navot Papushado [5]. so..why?Phoenix (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Those reports originated from an unreliable source. DarkKnight2149 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a Latino Review article cited as the original source of information on recent casting news by multiple other sites: [6]. Hula Hup (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Latino Review is an unreliable source. Should not be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Pepper - Comic Expansion, Can Someone Add this to the Article?

In February 2016, Dr. Pepper partnered with Warner Brothers to release five separate Batman v Superman prequel comics, which can be read in the below link. Each comic reveals information revealing new facts about the film such as the introduction of the villain Firefly' to the DCEU, a backstory for the new character of Senator Finch, the revelation that Lex Luthor is spying on Batman, the reason why Batman as become brutal, how Lex Luthor got a hold of the corpse of General Zod, the fact that Metropolis is still rebuilding after the events of Man of Steel, etc.

http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/read-five-batman-vs-superman-dr-pepper-prequel-comics#axzz3zDDFKFLl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.146 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Format of list of films

Currently, there is no table listing all of the films in the DCEU. The films are split between what has been released (right now, just Man of Steel) and what is forthcoming (all others). I think a table displaying ALL of the films, past and future, would be better suited to the article, especially considering that's how we do it with the MCU page. Thoughts? -Rmaynardjr (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with having such a table. It could benefit the article. DarkKnight2149 14:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Do note that this article is based on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films not Marvel Cinematic Universe. The table format is appropriately similar to the list of page in that regards. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Noted. DarkKnight2149 23:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
In a recent edit, a user mentioned that the aesthetic of the table was nicer with separate columns for screenwriter and story by. I think it's worth nothing that the Marvel Cinematic Universe page and the accompanying list of films do not include columns for story by; they only include screenwriters. I'm not sure if a story by column is really necessary if (a) there is a precedent set of Wikipedia for not including that information and (b) there are only two movies who would use two separate columns (at this point), while the rest would be merged cells. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Teen Titans

To avoid a potential edit war, I will further elaborate on why I have already reverted this edit twice:

  • "In May 2007, it was revealed that Warner Bros. was in development on a Teen Titans film in which Robin was the only confirmed member, possibly confirming the character's existence in the shared universe."
The DC Extended Universe wasn't even in development then (even the Marvel Cinematic Universe didn't exist then), so this doesn't apply to this article and it doesn't confirm anyone's existence in this universe. Also, we don't speculate.
  • "The current status of the film remains unknown because on September 11, 2014, it was announced that Akiva Goldsman is now developing a Teen Titans TV series called Titans."
Although there was a Titans series in development, it is entirely unrelated to this. This violates WP:SYN.
  • "Heroic Hollywood's El Mayimbe was a guest on the October 13, 2015 episode of Collider Heroes and he mentioned that Warner Bros. is developing both a Teen Titans movie with Cyborg among others and an all female group of heroes."
Heroic Hollywood and Latino Review are not reliable sources. Although they occasionally get a correct scoop, the bulk of their material is click bait. YouTube certainly isn't reliable, except where primary sources are concerned (in this case, the only thing we can use as a source are the Warner Brothers YouTube channel and the DC Entertainment channel). DarkKnight2149 23:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the YouTube video IS a reliable source (in part), as it falls under the official video channels. What you're looking for in comparison of the guideline, is using Warner Brothers channel over Jane DoeXOXO121 channel. But, as you stated, even though the video is reliable, the info is coming form El Mayimbe, who is NOT reliable. So it fails per WP:RUMOR. Just wanted to clarify. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that Collider Videos is reliable. The Collider website is reliable because it's a news site. However, with the exception of interviews, Collider Movie Talk (and all related video spin-off series) is not reliable because it's purely an opinion piece. And too many of the "news" stories they give their opinions on are hypothetical or rumour material for their videos to be considered reliable. Even though they are usually very good at letting the viewer know what is and isn't rumour, that's not the case 100% of the time, and if we were to start using these videos as a source, we would constantly have to sort through fact and rumour. There are also rare instances where one of the commentators will give an unconfirmed scoop and state it as fact. For example, in 2015, Jon Schnepp stated that he knew for a fact that George Miller was being seriously considered to direct the Man of Steel sequel and nothing official has come out of that since. As a matter of fact, I think Miller may have contradicted that since then. DarkKnight2149 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily talking about the video itself, more the channel. The channel is fine to use, and can be used (see a video like this). But again, as both you and I are stating, it comes down to what the content is, who is saying it, and whether it is being presented as fact or rumor. And in this case, it is rumors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Title says all. Here they are:

Production companies

why are the production companies always being removed?? Atlas Entertainment and DC Entertainment arent the only production companies for the DCEU. what about Cruel and Unusual Films, Syncopy, New Line Cinema, RatPac Entertainment and Lin Pictures???Phoenix (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DC comics movies that are in development

I see that Suicide Squad 2, Man of Steel 2, The Batman movie, Justice League Dark and Lobo are in the "other potential projects" category. shouldnt they be in a special category because thir development was actually confirmed??Phoenix (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I sorta agree although the "confirmation" for them isn't really confirmation. Suicide Squad 2 and Man of Steel 2 are just rumors for now (despite being very likely) and the Batman solo movie is only an idea (Affleck himself says WB wants to do one but for now nothing is in development). And the news about the Lobo movie doesn't seem all that official since the news didn't come from WB themselves, which is the case for all of these movies really. Also, we can't forget the Justice League Dark movie. So in a way, they do belong under "potential projects." Maybe we should just separate all the now defunct entries in the category (Green Arrow: Escape from Super Max and the Hawkman film) and give them a brand new category. I'm not sure what it should be called. How about... Canceled or inactive projects? Yeah, I like the sound of that. FaceOffTournament (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DC Extended Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Pagw clear up?

So Amber Heard needs to be added to the Justice League Part One and Aquaman sections, the Doomsday information needs to be removed from the Justice League section because it hasn't even been confirmed that he will be in the film at all? Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be re-written (especially cites need to be relocated) when we compare it to the articles about Marvel Cinematic Universe. CAJH (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Shazam unconnected to DCEU; proof

In April 2014 it was announced that films based on DC properties would be released, including Shazam.. When that announcement was made it was made clear that the film would be released by New Line and that it would be unconnected to the Justice League films. In October 2014, Neil stated that the Vertigo titles would-be released and unrelated to the DC comics films. The simple fact that Shazam is being produced by New Line Cinema and DC Entertainment. I believe it's not a DCEU flm simply because of those reasons. The fact that people are justifying it's reasoning for being on this page is because the film, that has been in stages of development since 2007 or so, got its release date with DCEU films at a meeting. I feel these reasons justify its non-inclusion. Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It was listed on the DC Entertainment film slate with the DC Extended Universe films. Dwayne Johnson also stated that it will be interconnected with the other films. [10] [11] DarkKnight2149 01:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Batman Solo Film is Official.

Guyz, the Batman stand along film is now confirmed by the Warner Brothers and official now. It should be put on the list of "Films" as it is confirmed. Even CBS did an article on it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-affleck-stand-alone-batman-film/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibran 2 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Justice League 2

So I'm having a little back and forth with "Dash9Z" about the second Justice League movie. As we all know, the two Justice League movies had the titles Justice League Part One and Justice League Part Two. That was, until Geoff Johns revealed that the official title of the first film would simply be Justice League, thus eliminating the "parts" in the titles. In turn, that rendered the second film untitled for the moment. I've specified on the page that the film is untitled but Dash9Z keeps changing the title to "Justice League 2," which isn't an official title at all. His reasoning? Because Charles Roven casually referred to the movie as Justice League 2 in an interview. I'm pretty sure it's common practice for people to refer to a movie's sequel as "(the movie's title) 2." People call Avengers: Age of Ultron "Avengers 2" but that doesn't make it official; it's just easier to say. What do you guys think? FaceOffTournament (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We already have an instance of a producer, Charles Roven, calling it Justice League 2. As many of you are aware, Geoff Johns later clarified the first film's title as Justice League. After The Avengers was release and a sequel was announced, people were calling it The Avengers 2, including here on Wikipedia. When the title was revealed to be Avengers: Age of Ultron, the title was changed to the new title. When the film does get release and if it isn't called Justice League 2 then we'll change it to its new title. Dash9Z (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
...You literally just proved my point of you using a casual and unofficial name for the movie, with no other basis to your reasoning...FaceOffTournament (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I just showed you an example of a similar situation of Avengers: Age of Ultron when the film was called The Avengers 2 here in Wikipedia and by people. During that time, producer Kevin Feige referred to the film by its chronological number title and The Avengers 2 was the working title until they worked out the story and revealed the title to the public in 2013. Now in the present, producer Charles Roven referred to the second Justice League film by its chronological number title. We can use the title Justice League 2, unless they change it later on. Dash9Z (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cast section overcrowding

The cast table is comprised of characters that appear in two movies or more, but some of these characters have little to no significance in the film series as a whole, and many of them barely appear in one or both of the released films (Pete Ross, Father Leone, etc. are cameos in BvS, no audible dialogue, really serving no purpose in the overall story). I'd suggest we remove some of these names based on this (The X-Men series just did the same thing: someone added Magneto's parents to the cast table because they had appeared in enough movies to be on the table, but they were removed because their inclusion and overall bearing on the series was still minimal). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adding the likes of Pete Ross back into the list when and if he becomes relevant, but for now, I don't really think his very backseat role in MoS and cameo in BvS really constitute his inclusion here. The names I suggest removing for now:

  • Carrie Farris
  • Jenny Jurwich
  • Lana Lang
  • Father Leone
  • Pete Ross
  • Steve Trevor
  • Glen Woodburn
  • TBA - Ewen Bremner
  • TBA - Saïd Taghmaoui

Carla Gugino is a frequent collaborator with Zack Snyder, so her appearance in both MoS and BvS is arguably significant. I'm completely open to edits to this list, I just wanted to give us a starting point. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing Chris Pines as Steve Trevor, Ewen Bremner and Said Taghmoui. All 3 just had had cameos in BvS, but are set to be in the main cast of Wonder Woman, so not really "Insignificant" as you put it. All the rest, I agree to remove.Phoenix (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
We can't just remove actors based on how important we feel they are, because everyone can have their own opinion on who should and shouldn't be there. Criteria need to be set, and we need to stick to them, so if the feeling is that the table is getting too big, then tighten the criteria. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That's easy to say but what would the criteria be? I definitely agree that the table is ridiculous. I'm one of the people who've tried to clean it up to only include significant and/or starring characters but got "scolded" because blah blah they've appeared in multiple movies. It was stupid and annoying but I just let it be. FaceOffTournament (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We could alter the criteria so that a character must appear in three or more films. That would remove all of the above, as well as Kelor, Jonathan Kent, Martha Kent, Lex Luthor, Mera, Alfred Pennyworth, Calvin Swanwick, Perry White, and General Zod. Adam, I get what you're saying about defining specific criteria, and I agree. That said, there appears to be little to no regulation of what constitutes a "cameo" appearance. In BvS, Father Leone and Pete Ross are only seen in a small handful of shots each, and have no dialogue, while Jonathan Kent gets a good 2 or 3 minutes of screen time and some dialogue. But Costner is credited with a cameo appearance while Goss and Cranford are listed like any other cast member. Is there a way to exactly define "cameo" appearance? If so, maybe we can set the criteria to be that a character must appear in two or more films, but a cameo or photo appearance can't count (though may be included if the character has appeared in two other films in non-cameo roles). I'm just spitballing some ideas here. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We generally only call an appearance a cameo if it is uncredited, regardless of screentime or impact on the film's story, etc. Also, remember that these characters can appear in more films in the future, so if it feels like any new criteria is going to cut too many out, that won't necessarily last long. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Jonathan Kent is not uncredited in BvS, his name appears in the scrolling credits. We can change that if need be. How about this idea? Two appearances required to be on the table, and at least one of those appearances must be credited in the main billing of the film (in other words, being listed only in the scrolling credits would not count for this.) Cameos, photo appearances, and listings in scrolling credits may be included, but only if the character is credited at least once in a film's main billing. A stipulation would be that we have to wait for a film's billing block to be released (in a trailer or on a poster, or through some other verified means) to determine if a character is listed in a film's main billing. Changing the table to reflect these rules would result in the following:
  • Characters included on the table currently:
    • Clark Kent/Kal-El
    • Jonathan Kent
    • Martha Kent
    • Lois Lane
    • Lex Luthor
    • Alfred Pennyworth
    • Diana Prince
    • Calvin Swanwick *See below
    • Bruce Wayne
    • Perry White
    • General Zod
  • Characters removed from the table indefinitely:
    • Carrie Farris
    • Jenny Jurwich
    • Kelor
    • Lana Lang
    • Father Leone
    • Pete Ross
    • Glen Woodburn
    • Zack Snyder Cameos
  • Characters removed until they are listed in a film's billing block, which is presumed to happen for upcoming film (perhaps we can hide them rather than remove them?):
    • Mera
    • Steve Trevor
    • TBA - Ewen Bremner
    • TBA - Saïd Taghmaoui
  • Characters allowed to stay on the list currently despite no confirmed billing block credits because they are expected to headline an upcoming film:
    • Barry Allen
    • Arthur Curry
    • Victor Stone
In adapting these rules, the table would be significantly shortened, and there is nothing left to the opinions of the editors. The one gray area would be actors that are listed outside the main billing but in addition to their scrolling credits listing (more generally, the ones whose names appear in addition to other names on the screen at the same time): so far, that's Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff, and Michael Kelly in MoS; and Scoot McNairy, Callan Mulvey, and Tao Okamoto in BvS... We definitely do need to clearly define this, and I don't lean strongly either way, but I say we include these characters for specificity's sake. It's tough to argue "outside" and "inside" the main billing, because some films structure their main billing differently in the film itself than they do in trailers and on posters. But it's very easy to define "listed only in the scrolling credits" and "listed in the scrolling credits and main billing." Thoughts on this new set of criteria? -Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Using the billing is a good idea, but it should be specified that we use the billing on the posters (just like we do in the film articles themselves), since you are correct in that the film's main billing can often be different. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Adam, can we use the billing on the posters before the film is released, and then update the table (if necessary) when the film is released based on the main billing in the credits? For example, the MoS billing block does not include Harry Lennix, but the main billing in the credits does. Lennix then appeared in BvS, so I would opt to keep him on the list, reference billing blocks leading up to release, and then use the film's main billing as a final source. Is this acceptable?-Rmaynardjr (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to change the criteria for the table and make appropriate edits tomorrow unless anyone has any other suggestions or concerns. I plan on using the following new criteria: "This table only includes characters which have appeared in multiple films within the shared universe, where at least one of their appearances was credited in the film's main billing." I'll also add a note, clarifying that poster and trailer billings may be used leading up to the release of the film, but after the release, the main billing in the credits will be used to determine each character's place in the credits. Please voice any concerns! I think we're ready to make the change, but I want to make sure I'm not acting too quickly or not hearing anyone's opinion. Thanks! -Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
We should generally stick to the poster billing over the film's billing, as you will see in many films that they often through a lot of recognisable names up at the end of the film who they don't bill on the posters, just for the sake of name recognition rather than the contractual issues that go into a proper billing block. However, in certain cases it may be appropriate to discuss whether someone should be counted as billed from the film if they aren't on the poster. This happened with Anthony Mackie in Ant-Man: he wasn't in the poster since we weren't supposed to know that he was in the film, but he obviously played a significant role, and his name was in the onscreen billing, so it was agreed that he should count as well. So if you think there is another situation like that, say with Lennix, then just discuss it and see what consensus is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Another user just jumped the gun and took out some of the names, so I'll go ahead and rewrite the criteria now, and edit it to fit the new criteria. I'm not particularly in favor of Lennix staying in the table, or particularly against it for that matter. It was just a gray area I wanted to bring up before we made any changes. I'll remove him in accordance with his lack of being in the main billing on at least one film. I'm going to HIDE Mera and the Wonder Woman characters, since they're expected to be on a billing block soon, but haven't been yet. Thanks Adam and everyone else who helped with this talk! -Rob RM (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Cameo?

The topic of cameo appearances was brought up in an earlier discussion (See cast section overcrowding above). A cameo appearance is defined on Wikipedia as one that typically isn't credited. However, Jonathan Kent, The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg (all listed in the cast section as having cameo appearances in BvS) are credited. Can we try to define exactly what constitutes a cameo appearance? Or should we use the current definition and remove the cameo markings from their names?-RM (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the cameo markings for now. We can reinstitute them later if it becomes necessary to mark a cameo appearance separate from a credited one. -RM (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Story by"

In regards to the tables on the page, is it important to add who contributed to the story of a movie, even if they didn't actually write it? I personally think the only pertinent information, at least for the tables, is the actual screenwriter. I'm referring to, of course, the inclusion of Christopher Nolan for the story of Man of Steel. It seems slightly out of place, formatting-wise, doesn't it? It's cool to know but it kinda detracts from the table's uniformity. I personally think that - again, just for the tables - it should only say the name(s) of the official screenwriter(s). FaceOffTournament (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The MCU does it that way, so I'd have no problem with it. It appears (though obviously isn't confirmed) that future DCEU movies will only credit "writers," and not story bys and screenwriters, and if that's the case, Nolan's name will only continue to appear even more out of place as more films are released.-Rmaynardjr (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
So is it agreed that that part should be removed? FaceOffTournament (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll be bold and remove the story by segment. Nolan's name is all over the MoS page anyway. -RM (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that and I'm glad you agree. FaceOffTournament (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
So, the issue just came up again regarding who came up with the story of a movie. TheSomeGuy97, unaware that Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to write the story treatment for The Flash over a year ago (possibly two years at this point), thinks they're the actual writers of the movie and thus made several edits to falsely declare them as such. He even added it to a paragraph that literally already mentioned their involvement in the first lines, as if it was news. A story treatment is just a quick summary of events and basically a guideline for the actual screenwriter to follow, and many of that stuff might not even make it into the completed screenplay, thus, like Christopher Nolan, it doesn't make sense to include them under the screenwriter section of the table. I'm making this post because I can see it becoming an ongoing issue with him. He also keeps adding Kurt Johnstad and/or David Leslie Johnson as the writer(s) of Aquaman when it's currently unconfirmed which of two, or both, will be the official screenwriter(s) of the film. FaceOffTournament (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Future plot synopsis

Even if sourced, should a plot synopsis for an unfinished film be added, as has been done in the Justice League section? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

I can see that the wave of original research, rumours, unreliable material, ETC has continued to persist. If it continues, I will once again request page protection (as I have in the past). At this point, this is just absurd. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Films and Upcoming films

We currently have two sections for "Films" and "Upcoming films." To me, it seems sort of counterintuitive to separate the films based on those which have been released and those which haven't, whereas a cohesive, single table for all of the films would provide a cleaner, more effective way to gain an overview of the series overall. The table columns are identical, save for the "status" column only present in the upcoming films table. If we combine the tables, we can write "Released" as the status of any released films, which clearly distinguishes them from upcoming films. I don't want to jump the gun on this sort of change, though, since it's fairly significant. So, is there any particular reason we have to separate the films in the first place? And thoughts on combining the two sections into one? (Just to be clear, I do believe the "potential projects" section should remain separate, until any films listed there are confirmed for the DCEU.) -RM (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. It actually used to be one section but someone separated them for whatever reason and no one ever bothered to undo it. I vote that they be combined again, for all the valid reasons you listed. FaceOffTournament (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page lists unreleased films separately, and that is what this article is apparently based off of. I think that's why they are separated here. That said, it sort of makes sense to separate them for the MCU, because released MCU films are sorted into phases (it's not just a released films section, each phase has its own section), and a film could potentially be moved between phases as needed. Take Ant-Man, for example: originally announced as part of Phase Three but moved to Phase Two. In the MCU's case, it probably makes the most sense to wait until a given film is released (because then it is truly a part of a given phase). But the DCEU isn't organized that way. It's just a series of films. That's why I'm thinking they probably belong all together. -RM (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
They absolutely do so my vote still stands to combine them. :) FaceOffTournament (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The upcoming films and unreleased films are listed separately due to WP:CRYSTAL. DarkKnight2149 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149 on what grounds, then, does Marvel Cinematic Universe list all of the films, including those which are upcoming, in a single table? Also, I'm not entirely sure this change would break the rules set forth in WP:CRYSTAL. We're not alleging that the films are certain to be released on any given date, but at this point, verifiable sources have set release dates for certain upcoming films. Why can't we include them with the released films? I get what you're saying about not being able to be certain of the dates, but why does that require them to be separated?-RM (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong position as to whether or not we should include them together. But I'm certain that the reason they aren't listed together at the moment was probably because it was seen by whoever created the section as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since the films haven't been released yet.
With that being said, perhaps a possible solution would be to turn the "upcoming films" section into a subsection for the "Films" section. That's just a suggestion, though. DarkKnight2149 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe that could work. The idea was to put them in a single table so that someone could view all of the notable information for all of the films in a single place. That said, we could perhaps put the tables together, and list the released films as subsections of the Films section, and have an Unreleased Films subsection below all of the released films. Then, list all of the unreleased films as subsections of that. So:
  • Article
    • Films
      • Man of Steel
      • Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
      • Upcoming films
        • Suicide Squad
        • Wonder Woman
        • etc.
thoughts on that? This puts the table together, which was the original intention, and still separates the films from the upcoming films in a very clear way.-RM (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I second this. DarkKnight2149 03:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thirded, lol. Git'r done. FaceOffTournament (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... I was on vacation for a couple weeks. I'll make the change now -RM (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Flash

The Flash movie originally for March 16, 2018, was erased from Box Office Mojo page, in place of the Tomb Raider reboot in the same date.OscarFercho (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Story and screenplay

Shouldnt the writer for the story be added in the table too?? I mean, Will Beall is the writer for the Screenplay based on the story by Geoff Johns and James Wan. Like this it looks like Will Beall is the story writer, even though he is not Phoenix (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A month or so ago, we removed the "story by" element from the table on the grounds that Man of Steel was then the only film with a story credit separate from the screenplay. However, given that there's new info now about WW and Aquaman, it seems we should add it back. My thought was to add a story by column (and in the case of BvS, SS, and other films where there is simply a writing credit, merge the cells in those columns). However, that adds a seventh column to the table, which might make it difficult to read, especially on smaller screens. I was thinking we could remove the producers column and make a separate table for producers, because while writers and directors would be expected to change with every film, producers have been shown to work on several films in a row, with producers added or removed after several years and/or promoted or demoted to or from an EP position instead. It might be better to show producers this way, but keep the writers and directors in the existing table. Thoughts? -RM (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rmaynardjr: I like that idea. but we could also add under the Writer(s) column: Story by xxx, Screenplay by xxxxPhoenix (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@MarkoPhoenix: I think that having distinct columns adds a bit of uniformity, whereas a single writers column would require some films to have Story by xxx, Screenplay by xxxx listed and others would simply require a name. I think if we separate them, and merge when appropriate, it makes a bit more sense. Just my opinion, though. -RM (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I still think that the screenwriter is ultimately the most pertinent in regards to the table. Those responsible for the story treatment will be credited on the respective film's own page anyway, right? I just don't think we should change the table for only two movies. If it were more common, sure. Also, what about the films that don't officially credit the person(s) responsible for the story treatment? For example, Allan Heinberg and Zack Snyder came up with the story for Wonder Woman according to reports and Patty Jenkins herself mentioned herself being locked in the writers room with them to figure out the story for the movie. Do you think all of them will get a story credit? Will James Wan and Geoff Johns get an official story credit for Aquaman either? It's a tricky thing so I vote we keep doing it the way we've been doing. FaceOffTournament (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

TheSomeGuy97

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting tired of this guy and his disruptive edits. If you take a look at his talk page, he has a history of doing so to other articles as well. FaceOffTournament (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@FaceOffTournament: I personally haven't been paying that much attention to his edits, aside from him italicising things that don't need to be italicised every once in a while (example: "Untitled Justice League sequel" instead of the proper "Untitled Justice League Sequel"). The user appears to be new and there is a learning curve. My personal advise is to wait for his editing to improve. If it becomes a serious issue that has a negative impact on the Wiki, then would be the time to report it. DarkKnight2149 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first few times but he blatantly changes reasonable things and persists on redoing these changes after they've been undone, even when given a perfectly reasonable reason why they've been undone. It's just getting tiring cleaning up after him, lol. FaceOffTournament (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@FaceOffTournament: I'm starting to see your point. The user is still italicising things that aren't supposed to be italicised, despite having been told not to. I left a disruptive editing warning on his Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
They also never respond or discuss any changes they have made. Check out their talk page to see the numerous and varied warnings they have received, including problems with uploaded images. I think the only way to get their attention would be to block them for a day or two. Considering they started editing in April 2016, and the amount of edits they've made, there's not really so much of an excuse for their continued disruptive behavior, imho. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@FaceOffTournament: @Ebyabe:

I just filed a report on the user at WP:ANI. The user continued making disruptive edits even after a final warning was left on their Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled and inactive projects

Should this section be removed? It's my opinion it should. Because the projects it describes are actually unrelated to the DC Extended Universe, all of them predate its existence. They are, at best, related to the failed previous attempt at a shared universe, that was started by the 2011 Green Lantern film. There is even one film from 2008 in the section, and I think none of them can be, by any means, related to the current DC Extended Universe, as they were being developed even before the DCEU was conceived...they're far older than even Man of Steel from 2013, that started development in 2011. Just because David. S. Goyer was involved in one of those films, it doesn't mean they are related to the DCEU. I think it is clear they are projects not related to the current DC shared universe and thus it should be removed. What do you guys think? Onikiri (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is any precedence or policy related to this, but I see what you're saying. That said, development on Man of Steel actually began in 2008... A quote from the Man of Steel Wikipedia page: "In June 2008, Warner Bros. took pitches from comic book writers, screenwriters and directors on how to successfully restart the Superman film series." In that regard, anything related to DC Comics-based movies occurring in June 2008 or later could technically be seen as relevant. Perhaps we could come up with a set of guidelines to determine the relevance of any given cancelled project (since technically if it's unreleased, it's not part of the DCEU) But I wouldn't remove anything until we have clearly outlined the new rules. -RM (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think it should be removed until some consensus is reached, and in that case, I think the info should be preserved here on the talk page anyway, for archival purposes. I'd say that I very much doubt that these inactive films have any relation to the DCEU, because of what I already said, and they would have most likely been a part of the shared universe that would have existed if Green Lantern hadn't been a failure. Even Man of Steel is unrelated to that shared universe, since it was the first in a new attempt at a shared universe, and the previous one was discarded, well, it didn't even start. And to be honest, it's also obvious that it's highly unlikely those projects will ever get out of development hell, it's been almost ten years now for one of those films. I think, that for easier reading and to improve the article, that section should be removed.Onikiri (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The 2011 universe (we'll just call it that for now) that never got off the ground may have been the original intended home for these inactive projects, but nothing says that they can't show up in the DCEU if and when the time is right. It does sound like the DCEU is going in a different direction, though. We could set a general guideline that states that inactive projects with no sources more recent than five years old could be considered inactive enough to not list on the page itself (Within reason... I mean, if we reach October 2019 and still haven't seen Man of Steel 2, I'd argue that the source from Oct 2014 stating that a sequel is in development is still relevant. But that's Superman, not Swamp Thing.) I agree that any removed projects should be archived on the talk page, just in case. If we set the five year rule, that would take care of all three cancelled/inactive projects, but we might want to provide specific reasoning for each.
  • The script for Green Arrow: Escape from Supermax reportedly leaked online, almost eight years ago, and the site which hosts our source article no longer is displaying that article. The CW has seen success in their own Green Arrow-centric universe, so the likelihood of a Green Arrow film, especially this one, in the DCEU is next to none.
  • I'd argue that the minimal information we have about a Swamp Thing movie is more relevant now to the development of Dark Universe, since that's where Swamp Thing was most recently reported to appear. The article also currently states "Warner Bros hopes to include [the Justice League Dark characters] in future DC Extended Universe titles..." so it sounds like plans to have Swamp Thing appear in a film have failed twice now, but WB is holding on to the property in case something happens eventually.
  • And finally, we have a single source from five years ago stating that WB was looking to hire writers for a Hawkman movie, but no follow-up... It appears that WB never even hired a writer. Additionally, the source article we cite, itself cites "It's On The Grid," which has no information anymore about the project. I'm not really sure the project is "cancelled" if we have reason to believe it was never a project at all. WB must put out hundreds of loglines a year, looking for writers to pitch ideas about a potential film, but if we have no sources confirming that anyone ever wrote anything for a Hawkman film, I'm not sure this particular "cancelled project" even needs to stay on the talk page.
I'm all for moving GA and ST to the talk page and removing Hawkman completely, but as far as I'm aware this is unprecedented, so I'd love to have a more experienced editor take a look at this and give us a green light before we jump on it. -RM (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

At this time, there are currently three films in the Cancelled and inactive projects section:

I don't really see any information that indicates any of these films were intended to be in the DCEU, though it seems unlikely given that these were from 2008-2011. If they were intended to be part of the 2011 Green Lantern Cinematic Universe, then I could see us including it since it was DC's first attempt at creating a cinematic universe, which makes it significant to the formation of the DCEU in my opinion. However, I'm not sure that there is any solid information indicating that they were going to be set in that universe either. At the moment, my instinct is to move the section to a more pertinent article or temporarily remove it. Although it contains encyclopedic information, I don't think it is very relevant to this specific article (aside from speculation that the film's may or may not be intended for a cinematic universe). Guidelines could be helpful, though I would imagine that there would be some instances similar to this where each film would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Another option could be to change the section title to something similar to Cancelled and inactive potential projects, but I think moving the section elsewhere or removing entirely would be the most logical option until more inactive projects surface that we know for certain were intended for the DCEU. If that ends up happening, it would probably be wise to place the section in a sandbox until we find out if any of these films were going to be in the DCEU, if there is ever a confirmation. DarkKnight2149 19:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DarkKnight. Where should these projects be archived? I was also hoping you could take a look at the "potential projects" section right above the cancelled/inactive section... Should "Dark Universe" be moved into the Cancelled/inactive section? It's been dead for over a year now. Also, I think that some of the information about the Lobo film is irrelevant now (such as Guy Ritchie and Dwayne Johnson). Can we clean it up at all?-RM (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Weren't there reports/rumors recently about Justice League Dark? It's definitely been active within the last year. FaceOffTournament (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rmaynardjr: Speaking specifically about Justice League Dark, I think that that film doesn't belong in the cancelled/inactive section because they do keep releasing updates on the status of that film every so often. Every time it seems dead in the water, one of the crew or someone at Warner Brothers seems to comment on it, or there's a new report. I agree that Lobo isn't very relevant anymore. If memory serves, I think it was even cancelled sometime before Dwayne Johnson was announced to play Black Adam. If we are going to move the overall section to a more pertinent article, I think List of films based on DC Comics might be a potential candidate. Thoughts? DarkKnight2149 20:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I read an article not long ago which referred to Justice League Dark as "cancelled," but it wasn't specifically sourced, and it sounds like we have more info here to support the contrary. So we can leave JLD. Lobo should probably be shortened to the last sentence of the current version of the paragraph (if a script was in development back in March, it's relevant; anything earlier is probably not.) I think List of films based on DC Comics is a perfect choice to movie this info. - RM (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Seems fair. If there are no objections, I'll try to get started on moving the section sometime over the weekend. DarkKnight2149 20:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good -RM (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't undestand. What's the object to include cancelled projects in a list of released or officially announced films?OscarFercho (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It was moved there because that article is applies to all DC Comics films, whereas this article only applies to the shared universe films. None of the cancelled/inactive films were confirmed to have been set within the shared universe. DarkKnight2149 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
But, why moved to a list of released or confirmed movies? That induce to a confussion. What's their real status? inactive? cancelled? The list of films it's not place for those projects not realized. Its place is on the respective articles of every character.OscarFercho (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If the projects were never "officially" announced by DC/Warner Bros. they don't really belong on the List of films article. Otherwise, that page would be flooded with anytime new bits come out for writers or directors attempting to tackle a project that never comes to fruition. Based on the text included there, it doesn't seem like any of those projects were ever greenlit. So the info should be included at the respective "in other media" articles or sections for Green Arrow, Swamp Thing and Hawkman. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The title of the article is "List of films based on DC Comics", not "List of released films based on DC Comics". And the article won't be flooded with anything. Every film in the section is inactive, and has been for years. The only time the section would ever be updated with actual news is if WB announces a cancellation on one of their films (which isn't likely to happen and it doesn't happen often). DarkKnight2149 20:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
But they were never announced as being in development to begin with, only that writers and/or directors were attaching themselves to the potential projects. It would be one thing if DC/Warners announced these films and they have since gone inactive (much like Gambit and Inhumans on the Marvel side), but that is not the case with these. That is the reasoning that I was going for. If we were to keep the heading (which I really don't think we should), an appropriate film for it would be Superman Lives or Justice League: Mortal. Those were films that was announced, and had planned filming dates and such that did ultimately get cancelled. As I said in my earlier comment, the three listed currently were never more than ideas and script treatments. It is just inappropriate for inclusion at the list of films article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If not the "List of films" article, then where would you propose we move the section? It was moved from this article because they weren't confirmed to be a part of the shared universe. I think the list article might be the best place for the section at the moment (at least until there's a better alternative), even if some of the information is listed in the character articles. DarkKnight2149 21:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The info should stay at the respective "in other media" section/articles. So Green Arrow in other media#Live action_2, Swamp Thing#Film and Hawkman#Live-action_2. And for two of those three, the info is already there (just Swamp Thing's is not listed at the spot I linked to). Because again, the three films in that table were never "cancelled" or could be considered "in active" because they never were greenlit or active to begin with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The rationale of Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) is totally correct and very assertive.OscarFercho (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rmaynardjr: Since you were the one who initially brought this to my attention, do you have an opinion on this development in the discussion? DarkKnight2149 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The List of DC Comics films isn't place for "inactive or cancelled" projects.OscarFercho (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Just catching up on all of these updates now, sorry for the delay... My original concern was whether they belonged in THIS article, since, as mentioned above, they're not confirmed for the DCEU. So, I suppose my only real assertion is that they not be moved back here. As for whether they stay on the List page, I can see both arguments: all three are DC Film "Projects," but they're not films. If one was looking for information about DC Films in general, perhaps cancelled projects are relevant, since it does in a way trace the lineage of DC Films overall. If one only wants a list of DC Films, they're not relevant. Perhaps the entire section could be shorted to a brief mention of cancelled Green Arrow and Swamp Thing projects, with links to Arrow (TV series) and Dark Universe accordingly. I'll be honest, I don't really think the Hawkman information needs to be retained at all. WB put out a call for writers, but we have no idea if anyone ever wrote anything for the project. At some point, I have to wonder how much development is required for a project to be considered "active" enough to eventually be deemed "cancelled." I don't get that vibe with Hawkman. Maybe that's a good compromise?
This whole discussion raises another question, though: are we to assume that all upcoming DC films will be part of the DCEU? I would generally assume so, but I think it's worth noting that as far as I can tell, we have no sources that explicitly state that the current iterations of the Lobo and Booster Gold projects will be set in the DCEU, but we still leave them here. Perhaps that discussion can be saved for another time, but still, it's worth mentioning.-RM (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I was never happy with having pre-Green Lantern potential films as being listed as potential films as part of the DCEU, because at that point it didn't exist or at least not the version that exists today (due to Man of Steel). If films like Super Max have to be mentioned, they could be mentioned along with the early attempts in the 90s where Michael Keaton would've cameoed in a Superman movie. (Although we don't really know where Super Max would've led to). -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, for my part I proceed to remove of the List of DC Comics films those cancelled or inactive projects. Please refers all that information in the respective articles of every character as Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) propossed, consider that it's impossible include every attempt of film that we hear.OscarFercho (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Batman reboot

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 13:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

More recurring cast and characters

Nuidis Vulko, to be played by Willem Dafoe and Mera, to be played by Amber Heard in Justice League (2017) and Aquaman (2018) are missing from the recurring cast and characters section. Also, Deathstroke, to be played by Joe Manganiello has been confirmed for The Batman and will also make his appearance in Justice League too. Ash wki (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the rules we set for this table several months ago: "This table only includes characters which have appeared in multiple films within the shared universe, where at least one of their appearances was credited in the film's main billing." We can add Dafoe, Heard, and Manganiello as soon as it is confirmed that they will appear in at least two films and that they are credited in the main billing for at least one of the films they've appeared in. -RM (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok.Ash wki (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's too early to add that film, and The Batman is only a rumoured title. See the discussion above. DarkKnight2149 01:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
DarkKnight, I'm not sure it's ever "too early" to start adding information if it's relevant and sourced appropriately. We don't have a title for the film, agreed. But we do have reliable casting information (specifically that Affleck, Irons, Manganiello, and Simmons will appear in the film). I've adjusted the table accordingly. It no longer bears the "The Batman" title, but it does mark that Affleck and Irons will appear. Simmons has been hidden until he meets the criteria for the table. -RM (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As clearly there is no agreement made on if it should be there or not it has been removed and I suggest there is a consensus made as to if it should be added yet.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't even have a release date at this point, and Ben Affleck still says it's in early development. DarkKnight2149 02:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree that until we have something more about it, it shouldn't be added. With that said others want to add it and as a community we should find either a consensus or middle ground with this. Personally I don't want to see an edit war start over something so trivial. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As an alternative, we could write something (in text as opposed to a part of a table) below the table, simply mentioned that Affleck and Irons are expected to reprise their roles in the as-yet untitled Batman film. However, I don't really see any reason to remove it from the table: even though we don't have a title or release date, it's still a film that DC has said is in development. We have information that can be added, let's add it. Regardless of all of this, though, Jeremy Irons DOES meet the current criteria for the table. He was in the main billing for BvS and is confirmed for JL. That's enough. If we're removing the Batman film column, fine, but none of the characters should be removed as a result. -RM (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The reason I think that it's a bit too early is because it isn't officially part of the slate yet, as Ben Affleck said "there is no Batman movie happening yet, we’re still trying to figure it out, you know, get the script and budget and all that stuff." Given context with everything else he said (the link is in the discussion above), this doesn't mean that the film isn't happening. However, it does mean that it's still in the early stages of development. It also wasn't announced as part of the original DCEU slate.
However, given that they seem to be contacting actors right now, I don't think it will be long before it's safe to add it to the table. I would be fine with adding text mentioning it below the table for now. DarkKnight2149 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
DC's original slate did include a Batman film and a Superman film both to be released between 2016 and 2020. There was just no date put on them to start off. I also think Affleck's "there is no Batman movie happening yet" is up for interpretation. He may just mean it's not filming yet (which is I think pretty likely). -RM (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Separate table for movies confirmed to be in development but without release date

As said, to stop people from adding movies that are in development in the movie table, how about a separate table in which we can add The Batman, Justice League Dark, Gotham City Sirens (which was confirmed to be in development) and etc.??Phoenix (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if a film doesn't have a release date it should be in the table, it should just be listed as "in development" in the future projects list. It's tough to gauge, though, because WB keeps putting a date on films and then removing them, like they did with Flash and (maybe) Justice League 2. I think it's worth discussing at least. -RM (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC_Extended_Universe/Archive_1&oldid=1136646665"