Talk:Superman (1978 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hugo Award

No mention of the movie winning the 1979 Hugo award at Seacon in Brighton, England? Odd. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Specifically it was the "Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation." --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correct me on the Mentioning of the Animated Series

Now I happen to be a major fan of that Awesome cartoon from the 90's, but What I am unclear about is where it says in the reaction section "The movie's legacy includes numerous television series, notably Superboy (produced, like the movie, by Alexander Salkind), Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Superman: The Animated Series, and the current prequel series, Smallville, which have all been influenced by the movie to some extent." Now I can understand how the live action Superboy series, Lois & Clark, and Smallville are clearly influenced by this film, but What exact Inspiration is there in the Animated Series with THIS MOVIE. Because that Cartoon Presents itself to be FAR Different from what you compare to this movie. Some examples would be the plot development with some of the supporting characters like Keeping BOTH the Kent Parents, and the Portrayal of some of the better comic book vilians the superman faces. So What Are THE Similarities? Nathen

The Earth does NOT spin backwards....

... it just looks that way because he is going back in time. Honestly, we have two possible interpretations, one of which makes sense and the other of which is completely ridiculous. Why would anyone favour the second one? Admittedly they did an extraordinarily poor job of explaining it (I think the audience was supposed to get it based on Jor-El's warning not to interfere with history, but that was much too subtle). But, that doesn't make the nonsense interpretation "obviously" right.

Therefore, I'm un-reverting this change. If someone disagrees, that's fine but I think this interpretation should at least be mentioned somewhere. (Also, the reversion also put back a grammatical error I fixed. Like the guidelines say, if you're going to revert, avoid collateral damage.)

Refresh my memory - when he's done "spinning it backwards", does he not then appear to "spin it back forwards"? Also, do you have any evidence of this from the script, or is this a personal theory? --Golbez 22:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for both of us, the publically available shooting script doesn't have that scene at all. Superman rescues Lois on the first try. (Everything else from Tessmacher rescuing Superman onwards pretty much proceeds as per the finished movie.) I'd welcome a look at the final script, or a look at interviews with someone like Salkind. It just seems to me that there are two explanations on the table, and one is ridiculous, so the other should be preferred, even if it seems less obvious to most people.

Having said that, I reiterate that if someone wants to re-edit the page so that part is worded less strongly, I don't really have a problem with that, but I do think the interpretation I brought up should at least be mentioned.

How is it any more ridiculous than a baby from another planet having super powers? ;) I'll try to slip it in. --Golbez 05:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's just a genre convention; a better point would be that it requires a selective reading of Einsteinean physics for the alternative to work. Let me stay instead that one explanation is, by a very large margin, more ridiculous than the other.

.......................... From the published story, Lex, Otis, and Eve, learn of Superman's weaknesses (he is unable to see through lead, and he is vulnerable to the substance Kryptonite), and Luthor finds out that a meteorite of the needed mineral is available at Addis Ababa. A

Did he really tell them that in the interview? A major lack of discretion!

In the interview with Lois, Superman said he was from Krypton and could not see through lead. He did not say anything about vulnerability to kryptonite, Lex Luthor deduced that somehow. Luthor's "explanation" to his moronic underlings about kryptonite being lethal only to Superman because of "the specific level of radiation" is scientific nonsense, but they had to come up with something. As far as "turning back the world", Superman can fly faster than the speed of light when he puts his mind to it, as per the comics. In fact there's something about flying "clockwise" vs. "counterclockwise" depending on which direction in time he's going, and that is visually alluded to on-screen, as he flies one direction around the globe to go backwards in time, and the other direction to go forwards (having apparently overshot his stopping point initially, or whatever). The fact that he could fly faster than the speed of light at that point, but was only able to catch up with one of the two rockets a little while earlier, is another slight hole in the plotline. Either that, or he can't exceed light speed unless he's really annoyed. Wahkeenah 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The first thing you mentioned was a plot hole, and... not really related to the discussion. As fpr the second thing you mentioned, Salkind and Donner both state on the audio commentaries for the film that Superman is spinning back the world. (Donner actually says that he "stops" the world's rotation briefly before causing it to spin back again. Absurd as that concept seems, I wouldn't expect most filmmakers in 1978 to be particularly concerned or knowledgable about quantum physics. Moreover, I would have even less expectation that the average moviegoer in 1978 would care. Despite the absurdity of this idea, it is no doubt what the filmmakers intended. The anatomy of the dinosaurs in Wallace and Cooper's King Kong doesn't fit factual information, but very few people have seen fit to argue that this means they aren't supposed to be dinosaurs. Basically what I'm saying: It's a movie. Deal with it. 1:06, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Otis

I'm pretty sure that Otis is not a comic-inspired character but why does he work for Lex Luthor? I mean, I can't see any way that he does.

(65.4.232.187 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

• Luthor asked himself that same question: "Why am I surrounding myself by total nincompoops?" By so doing, at least he doesn't have to worry about anyone intellectually challenging him. Wahkeenah 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unrelated" Sequel?

The movie led to three theatrical sequels, Superman II (1980), Superman III (1983) and the non-related Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987); and inspired the Salkind-backed 1984 follow-up, Supergirl.

This has got to be a mistake (or the work of a vandal). Supergirl is the unrelated one, Superman IV is no more "unrelated" than III was to II. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Canon/adoption?

Can we have a section on material from the movie that was original, and not part of the original comic book's canon? For example, Lex deducing kryptonite, Superman being able to time travel, etc. Also, I remember in the movie that he was unable to lie, is that right? It seems that that would be at odds with maintaining a secret identity. Also, I've heard that several conventions from the movie were later carried over into the comic book titles (Jor-El wearing the superman symbol on Krypton, Clark and Superman parting their hair on opposite sides). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Superman doesn't lie, but Clark Kent apparently does. Another way to look at it is that the Clark disguise is to enable him to find out about trouble in the world without being too conspicuous. So he justifies it on that basis. Maybe Superman doesn't "lie", but he "rationalizes". Time travel was part of the comics long before it was used in the movie. It was based on somewhat flawed interpretations of Einstein's laws. However, if the casual reader can accept that a man can fly just by jumping into the air, then anything is believable. Wahkeenah 16:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations

I'm reverting numerous plot sections of Superman articles due to copyright violations by 64.123.114.194, and while I've found the sources for Superman 2 and 3 (supermanhomepage.com), there was a recent (Dec 9) substantial plot update here that I haven't found the source of, in case this one is a copyright violation as well. Googling just left me with several Wikipedia mirrors for it. So just a heads-up in case someone wish to check this further. -- Jugalator 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You should revert the whole bloody essay that guy pasted in there. It reads not so much like someone simply describing the film, but like a critic's extended review. So either it's ripped off, or it's original research laced with Point-of-View, and either way it has to go. One thing that caught my attention was how it jumped over the 7 minutes (or whatever) of opening credits without even mentioning them.... a dead giveaway that something's fishy here. Wahkeenah 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Without someone posting permission, this is a copyright violation. Even without this, it's blatant plagiarism. The original is here. I've reverted it. JRM · Talk 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Pathetic, ain't it? Bravo for reverting it. Wahkeenah 01:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  If you're not familiar with the procedure, see Wikipedia:Revert. Anyone can and should do this when they can justify it on the talk page (as you did). Be bold. If you're concerned about someone overriding your judgment, just respect the one-revert rule and you'll be fine. JRM · Talk 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  I might have done it, but I figured you were on top of it, and you found the reference, so you get the gold star. :) Wahkeenah 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oxford Scientific Films

On the DVD commentary Donner says Oxford Scientific Films did the high speed effects photography for the Krypton Sun. Worth adding.

Synopsis Overlong

I have added a Cleanup message template starting at the Synopsis section heading because the synopsis itself is way, way overlong. Is the purpose of this article the actual retelling of the movie, or the encyclopedic analysis of the movie? Darcyj 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Have started to copy-edit what there is, but I agree this is not a synopsis, more a screenplay treatment! Are you asking for a one- or two-paragraph summary of the film? It can be easily condensed, if need be. Chris 42 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

...And I've done it! Slightly more than two paragraphs, but I hope it reads okay and covers all the major plot points. I also did a few minor edits. I removed the 'screen shot' photo, as it didn't state to what it was being compared, along one of the 'teaser trailer' shots, as it was unclear and Christopher Reeve's name was illegible. Chris 42 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing DVD Technical Referance

Would it not be significant to mention that the DVD's soundtrack was NOT a simple remaster, but an entirely new soundtrack build including some re-created sound elements? Violet Grey 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. Feel free to add it. Wahkeenah 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder about the phraseology "entirely new soundtrack". Technically that might be true, but it's actually a mix of old and new. The "whoosh" for the credits is clearly new (and, frankly, annoying and intrusive, rather than being "just part of it" as it was initially) but the music itself is the original track, near as I can tell... which is evident from the music-only track which has some apparent flaws in it. Wahkeenah 02:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We, I only use the term "new" as in it is newly created and mixed for the DVD project. This version of the soundtrack has never apeared in any other form and is beyond a simple remix or remaster. Of course it is open for debate and alteration if the majority sees it should be so. Violet Grey 14:36 16 May, 2006

• I see. I'd like to hear your impressions of the music-only portion of the DVD, if you happen to have listened to it. Wahkeenah 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think as wonderful as John Williams music consistantly is, this is not a movie that really functions without the dialouge and effects. Star Wars works that way simply because Lucas is a poor writer, but the people in this film are its most important element. Violet Grey 2:2520 May, 2006

Article title

Suggestion: Rename the article to "Superman: The Movie".

I've been doing a lot of work on other Superman articles, and I'm pretty sick of writing "[[Superman (1978 film)|Superman: The Movie]]." If the film was just called "Superman", then I'd be happy to disambiguate it so, but it's clearly semi-formally known as "Superman: The Movie". The opening sentence of the article states that it was only called "The Movie" in "pre-release advertising". But I have here in my hands a 2001 DVD titled "(Superman) The Movie Special Edition" - so yes, it is still often officially called "Superman: The Movie" even today.

I prefer to use the "long version" of something's name as the article title over a disambiguation - especially a disambig-by-year. But I won't rename it without some sort of approval since it's a heavily-linked page. —EatMyShortz 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• You can decrease your keystrokes by putting a vertical bar after "(1978 film)": Superman. The title debate has been held before. Regardless of various marketing campaigns, the true title is what appears on-screen. The film's real (reel) title is not Superman: The Movie, nor Superman: The Movie - Special Edition. It is just plain Superman. Wahkeenah 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Wahkeenah. As on the IMDb's pages, a film may be known under a number of titles, but the one that appears on the screen at its first public showing is the only one that counts — and is therefore the official title. (Hence why, for example, X2 is not called X-Men 2, even though it was heavily used during the film's promotion.) The DVD may be called Superman: The Movie but it contains a film entitled Superman. This page has already been moved from its incorrect title at least once before. Chris 42 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I could reduce my keystrokes by writing "[[Superman (1978 film)|]]" except that I find myself always having to write "[[Superman (1978 film)|Superman: The Movie]]" (as I said) - and this is partly just to keep up with everywhere else on Wikipedia where the link is called that as well. Maybe we have it wrong across the board, but it's not just me. At any rate, if you insist it must be called just "Superman", then I insist that the article title be simplified to "Superman (film)" - removing the date. After all, there is only one film called "Superman", and the page Superman (film) already redirects to Superman (1978 film). Is this proposal acceptable? —EatMyShortz 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as the article reflects the film's correct title, then I have no problem with that. However, having just checked the IMDb, there are a number of films called Superman. Of course, the 1978 one is the most well known, but perhaps there is still an argument for keeping the date? Personally, I would prefer it if any references to Superman: The Movie throughout Wikipedia were changed to Superman, which would ensure both uniformity and accuracy. Chris 42 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Are Chris and I the only ones who realize the importance of disambiguation? Especially when the opposing push is for a suffix as silly as simply "(film)" or "The movie". I mean...really. Look at "Punisher (film)"—the article, not the actual movie in its entirity. I've heard bad things.—or cinema marquees. Returns is the new "Superman". WW, FF, Batman and Shazam! have all been made before, but more modern movies are still being made. Bottomline, america: Disambiguating with the date is more respectful to the past and helpful to modern movie-researchers. Sorry if I got ranty, but I just had to add my ten—noticibly more than two—cents. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I perfectly understand the purpose of disambiguation - it isn't supposed to completely remove all possible conflicts, but just disambiguate enough so that it is unique on Wikipedia. If you want more information, such as the date, you go and read the first sentence of the article. Disambiguation is just there to make sure you get to the article in question, and therefore, it should be the shortest and most obvious title which is still unique. Since "Superman" is taken (by the character, far more important than the film), the next shortest and most obvious disambiguation is "Superman (film)". If someone goes looking for this article, do you think they're going to type in "Superman (1978 film)"? The other way to look at it is, either way we go, the other one will redirect to the article anyway, so it's not about people finding it, it's just a question of "which out of all the different redirects to this article is the shortest and most obvious disambiguation?", and it clearly is "Superman (film)" (Or "Superman: The Movie" if that is it's actual title, but you tell me it isn't). —EatMyShortz 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

DVD Bonus Features

I added the list of Bonus Features that are included in the 2001 Special Edition DVD.

Why say Superman Returns is a sequel?

I don't know why say that. I do that's a question searching for an answer.

user:I'm Madonna 8:58 p.m. PD: Don't Know what Day is it Today

It's a sequel to the 2nd film. Bryan Singer has stated (tho I don't have the time to look up a reference) that it picks up the storyline 5 yrs after II. You know, Lois has had a kid, the kid is obviously Superman's son, they slept together in the 2nd film... Tommyt 20:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This of course begs the question of whether or not all the Christopher Reeve films as well as Superman Returns fit into the same continuity... But I would agree that Returns is a sequel to I and II. 1:18, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

General Zod character

Why is 'General Zod' mentioned in this film when he does not actually appear in the franchise til the 2nd movie? leopheard 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• He's in the opening scene, along with the other two Kryptionian criminals, all three of whom are sent to the Phantom Zone soon before Krypton's sun goes supernova, thus they escape its fate. Originally, there was a notion that they were going to re-appear at the end, when the rocket Superman sent up into space explodes and frees them, thus creating a cliffhanger ending. That plan was scrapped and a similar concept was used early in Superman II. Wahkeenah 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is Richard Donner's preferred version?

Which version of superman the movie does richard donner prefer, the original theatrical cut, or the 2000 extended version with the integrated bonus scenes? Adam

Three acts?

The article now describes the film's plot in three acts, which are:

1. Krypton + Smallville
2. Metropolis: Superman's deeds and Luthor's plan
3. Climax

It seems to me that the divide between these "acts" 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary. (ie. Wikipedia made it up, it wasn't actually a real "third act"). Furthermore, I think there are three clearly-defined acts (and Donner and Mankiewicz back this up on the DVD commentary) - which are 1. Krypton, 2. Smallville, 3. Metropolis. Although with this redivision, Act III would be far longer than the first two acts, I think it much better represents the three distinct parts of the film. —EatMyShortz 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Critics who have divided the film into three (unequal) parts have used your breakout, not the other one. If that's in the article that way, it should be either changed or dropped altogether, as it is probably the editor's opinion. To look at it another way, the three "acts" are (1) Kal-El / Clark as an infant (2) Clark as a teen; and (3) Clark / Superman as an adult. Those aren't really "acts" in the typical sense, in fact. They are "mood changes". The scenes on Krypton are absolutely, deadly serious. A little humor starts to appear in Smallville, but it's still mostly serious. Metropolis is played like a comic book, and even Lex Luthor is hard to take seriously in spite of his murderous nature (too bad Kevin Spacey wasn't in the role then.) That's the difference among the three "acts". Wahkeenah 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

4th Super Villian

Where is proof of this? I've got the Ultimate Superman Collection (The 14 disc set) and I've watched nearly every special feature about this movie and I've heard absolutely no mention of a 4th villian. If this can't be proven then it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scmods (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• Gone. Wahkeenah 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Listen to Salkind and Spengler's commentary on the first film again. They mention it. (By the way, why does it appear to be three hours and four minutes later where you are than where I am? 1:23, 28 December 2006
    • Both Jak-El the fourth villain and Albert, Lex's other henchman, appeared in this draft of Mario Puzo's script, dated 1976: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/superman_original.txt. They also appear in the early draft for Superman II. I'm going to add mention of them back along with links to the scripts, if there's no objections. - Kooshmeister
      • OK, no problem. I haven't got around to listening to Salkind and Spanglers commentary yet. I just hadn't heard any mention of a 4th villian, so I was trying to verify that. Scmods 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Heat vision

One line in the trivia section says: At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers. Is this the only one Superman film where he doesn't use his heat vision? David Pro 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That was his X-ray vision. X-rays allows one to see through objects such as handbags, chest cavities, etc., but cannot travel through lead like the one lining the planter in Lois' oppulently palatial penthouse apartment. Therefore he could not see the color of her panties until she she walked around the aforementioned planter. --Jack Meihoffer 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • True. One could say he didn't need to, in this film (although he could have melted that lead planter, I supposed). I'm guessing Lois wore lead BVD's after that incident. But he needed to use heat vision at more than one point in Superman II, and did so. Wahkeenah 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD

Apeantly there is a version of the 2006 dvd on amazon.com that is in high definition.They cant really have that 1970s film in high definition can they,or is it just the extras or something?192.30.202.19

• Presumably one could make a high-def scan of a normal print. Kind of like making a CD from vinyl record. Wahkeenah 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok,i see what you mean now,you mean its like having a photograph that is standard resolution size and photo scanning it at high definition resolution,you see more detail in the photograph,but the scene in the photograph isn't any clearerRodrigue 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I'm getting at. As with older CD's from earlier recordings, where you can even sometimes hear tape hiss or crackling from the vinyl, this is another case of "you can't improve on the original". However, you can manipulate the original, as Lucas did with his early Star Wars films for re-release. Perhaps such trickery was done with the 1978 film, for example. Even the ca.2001 DVD release had new audio effects thrown in. That brings up the question of artistic integrity. It's like touching up the Mona Lisa with paint from the local hobby shop. Wahkeenah 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The movie was shot on film; therefore, it's already in HD. Film has a much higher resolution than VHS, DVD, and even HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray. They just need to scan the film in at 1080 lines to get an HD-DVD version. 194.203.201.92 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I am moving the trivia section onto the talk page so that anything useful can be worked into the rest of the article. As it stands, it has very little value in the article as it is difficult to read, too long and contains a lot of pointless things. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV for information on how to use trivia more effectively. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• The designation of the stylized 'S' as Jor-El's family crest on the planet Krypton solved an apparent logical dilemma for the creators of the Superman films. The 'S' is indestructible, as is the rest of Superman's uniform, but Kal-El was not called "Superman" on Krypton. The creators decided to adorn every Kryptonian leader's robes with a family crest (as noted in publicity magazines at the time) and the one for Jor-El's family happened to look like a stylized 'S'.

• Some reports say it was Marlon Brando's own idea for Jor-El to wear the recognizable 'S' symbol in the scenes on Krypton. The establishment of the 'S' emblem as the El family crest was a departure from the first three eras (Golden, Silver, Modern) of official DC Comics continuity, in which the 'S' emblem and costume were both created by Martha Kent (Mary Kent in the Golden Age) after Clark chose his heroic name. However, in the 2003 series Superman: Birthright, the 'S' symbol has been changed to represent a universal symbol of the planet Krypton, adorning their flags and military uniforms in holographic projections Clark finds contained in a device that came with him from Krypton. He chooses to wear the symbol to honor his Kryptonian heritage, and the name "Superman" is given to him by the newspapers.

• Christopher Reeve reported the following anecdote in his autobiography. The idealistic young actor Reeve asked the seasoned veteran Hackman what his 'motivation' was in playing the role of Luthor. Hackman responded, "You mean, besides the million dollars?"

• As had become his habit, Brando did not memorize his lines; he read them from cue cards spread around the set.

• Gene Hackman would not wear a bald cap for the part of Lex Luthor (with the exception of one scene at the end of this film, and a few scenes for the production of the second film), so Mankiewicz devised the notion of Luthor wearing several different wigs throughout the film.

• During the Smallville segment, the original recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets is heard on a car radio. This is significant as this is played at the beginning of Glenn Ford's final scene in the movie; Ford had starred in Blackboard Jungle, the film that introduced "Rock Around the Clock" (and helped launch the rock and roll era). The expanded ABC edit of the film, however, replaces the song with another piece of music.

• Superman was the first film to feature a split-channel surround soundtrack — originally a 6-channel presentation. Dolby Digital sound made its debut in Batman Returns. Both were produced by Warner Bros. and feature characters appearing in titles from DC Comics.

• DC Comics held The Great Superman Movie Contest, where two people won bit parts in the movie. Two teenage boys, Edward Finneran from Massachusetts and Tim Hussey from California, won the contest by cutting special letters out of comics and mailing them in. They appear in the movie as 'special football players' in the scene where Clark is the equipment manager for the high school football team. As the team runs into the school (actually a local football team from rural Canada where the scene was shot), the two winners are identifiable as they go by together, wearing gray uniforms without numbers; Ed says "See you later, Clark!".

• Shortly thereafter, Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill, who played the original Superman and Lois Lane in the movie serials, also have cameos. They appear as the parents of Lois Lane as a child on a train, while a young Clark Kent speeds by. Noel Neill would also have a cameo as the elderly Gertrude in Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer and intended as a sequel that ignores the continuity of Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

• As Richard Donner confirmed in the DVD audio commentary, he has a bit cameo in the shots of Clark getting caught in the Daily Planet doors: he is reflected in the glass.

• At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers.

• Originally, there was a fourth Kryptonian villain imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod, an "evil prankster" named "Jak-El" (apparently a pun on the word jackal). Lex Luthor also had a second henchman in addition to Otis in this incarnation of the story, a German man named "Albert." Both of these characters appeared in the July, 1976 draft of the script by Mario Puzo (which can be found here: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/superman_original.txt), but were dropped in subsequent drafts.

• Young Clark Kent (Jeff East) was dubbed with Christopher Reeve's voice. The only time East's real voice is actually heard in the movie is when he yells as he jumps across the train tracks.
• Superman was originally going to end with a cliff hanger where Superman throws the missile into the Phantom Zone, releasing the villains. The "turning the world back" ending was intended for Superman II; one of the edits to 2006's Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut replaced the theatrical cut's ending with the "turning back" version. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Please do not move this article without discussing it first. I believe it has been well hashed out that the proper title for this movie is Superman. Even if it were to be accepted that the correct title is Superman: The Movie, the article would not then be titled Superman: The Movie (film). It's redundant and unnecessary. The "(film)" is only there to differentiate this from other items titled "Superman". Now, if anyone wants to discuss changing the name of this article to Superman: The Movie, now would be the time and here would be the place to do so. Rhindle The Red 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, I had to put (film) after the title because when I tried to move the page, It wouldn't let me. Try for yourself, you'll see what I mean. I think that Superman: The Movie IS the correct title for the film. Even the 2006 DVD cover on the bottom of the page states so.Limetolime 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - "Superman: The Movie" is the real title. BGC 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to BGC not following procedure, we are back to the improper article title "Superman: The Movie (film)". We need to decide what the title will be and then get all of these moves fixed so that the discussions are on the correct page. The basic arguments for the two possibilites, Superman: The Movie and Superman (1978 film) go as follows:

• Superman: The Movie is the title that is used most often in promotional material and even by the people who made the film. Posters and home video releases usually use this title.
• Superman (1978 film) reflects the title of the movie as it actually appears on screen in the film itself. This is the rule that the Internet Movie Database follows. It is the title that the article has held for the longest.

We need to decide what the title will be and stick to it. There are now numerous links that go to both options and one needs to take precedence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs)

I would most support the title used in the opening credits. I had seen the title of The Road to Guantanamo represented on posters with and without the acute accent on the second A in "Guantanamo"[1][2] but when I saw the beginning of the film, it shows "Guantanamo" without the acute accent.[3] I personally think that this determination should be the final authority. Reginmund 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what promotional or marketing materials claim. The onscreen title of the movie — that one that is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the Screen Writers Guild, the Motion Picture Academy of America, etc. — is the only title.

In addition, every authoritative reference source — from Screen World Annual to The Variety Sourcebook to The Motion Picture Guide, which was bought and put online by TVGuide.com — uses the proper title. It is Superman — just as it is Die Hard 2, and not Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

This should not even be a discussion. We don't vote on what our favorite title is. This is an encyclopedia, and the only title an encyclopedia uses is the official, registered, onscreen title. --Tenebrae 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing "favorites" here. We are discussing what is the most appropriate title for the article and that is not necessarily the "official" title. The original Star Trek show is not at Star Trek (it's proper title) or even Star Trek (TV series). It is at Star Trek: The Original Series because that is the accepted way of referring to it *now*. I actually agree with your points, but the notion of calling the article Superman: The Movie is still a valid one, if not one I agree with. Rhindle The Red 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement on the practical matter, and an interesting point of view on the theoretical. I'm not going to get into a tussle with Trekkies (term used advisedly), but it'sonly fans and the Paramount marketing dept. that call it Star Trek: The Original Series, and not even Paramount is changing the titles onscreen.

Wikipedia is written for the general public, who only knows the original TV show as Star Trek, and frankly, there's billions more general public than there are fans. Wikipedia is written, calls it Star Trek, and that in fact is the title. You mention people call it ST:TOS *now*. But an encyclopedia cannot base some of its most important decisions, such as naming criteria, on transient changes, fads, or marketing ploys.

What one person calls "appropriate" another person may not. "Appropriate" is opinion. The official, accurate, factual, registered name is not opinion.

Forgive me if I sound like I'm coming down on you. I'm not -- we're in agreement. But I'm rightfully concerned about a lack of encyclopedic standards overall. Ask yourself: Would the Encyclopedia Britannica not have the official title of the series in an article about the series? --Tenebrae 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Superman: The Movie (film) to Superman (1978 film) as the result of a move request. Folks, there's no sign of a poll on this page, so I've moved it to "Superman (1978 film)". You may continue to debate the merits of "Superman: The Movie" but the extra disambiguation of "(film)" had to go. While I agree the film was originally entitled "Superman: The Movie," the fact that it was followed by several numbered sequels seems to have affected the use of the title in subsequent releases, presumably because it was no longer "the" movie. (See Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and (Indiana Jones and the ) Raiders of the Lost Ark for two contrasting examples of this.) If there's still a strong desire to move this article to "Superman: The Movie" please re-post it to Wikipedia: Requested moves. Thanks, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (Comment later re-added after weird server behavior meant the talk page wasn't moved -- thanks Stemonitis -- and this comment was never added)

Reception section

I am appalled by what was here. Incredibly, blatantly POV and filled with uncited claims, WP:NOR "analysis" that amounted to hype, and such inexcusably hyperbolic, non-encyclopedic phrases and sentences as 'John Williams' score is known as one of the greatest soundtracks ever for a superhero film" and "monstrously beating out it's [sic] $55 million budget".

WikiProject Film states how the Reception section should be written: Box-office results first, followed by a report of a critics-aggregate site (typically Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), followed by a sampling of quotes by authoritative critics. What was here was a travesty. --Tenebrae 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Donner section

Some of the material in this section was not supported by the cited Frieman article at Superman Homepage, and other parts were WP:NOR interpretation and analysis, such as the Tom Mank. rewrite giving the script a more "Science Fiction" (sic -- not a proper noun to be capitalized) tone.

Here is the pertinent material from Frieman article. Please see for yourselves and do not make claims unsupported by this if one is citing this:

As Donner explained on the 2001 Special Edition "Superman" DVD, he brought in Tom Mankiewicz to rewrite parts of the script which had already seen revisions from writers Robert Benton and David Newman (Newman's wife Leslie joined the project later to "write Lois"). The Writers' Guild gave writing credits on the film to Puzo, Benton, and the Newmans. Mankiewicz received a credit as "Creative Consultant".

Salkind acknowledges that Mankiewicz "did some great, great stuff", but suggests that the interviews on the 2001 DVD may have failed to recognize the contributions made by the film's other writers. "If you compare [earlier scripts] to the Mankiewicz script, frankly, it's surprising how little changes there were to the dialogue. Things have to be said true the way they are. I had forgotten myself and re-read the Newman script. [A]ll that stuff [on Krypton] was the same, the entire Lex Luthor thing. Tom did some great, great stuff but there was a lot of great stuff [already]."

"The whole 'pink' [Lois interviewing Superman on her balcony] and all that - that's all [the Newmans]. We tested with that and Tom wasn't working yet," noted Salkind. "We had agreed that Tom could come to work on the project [by the time we started screen tests] but the script was pretty solid."

--Tenebrae 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed there's a heavy reliance here on DVD commentary, which is great primary-source material.

But verbatim quotes, or at the very least a timecode, need to be here to support claims ostensibly based on a DVD interview, such as that claim of Donner wearing a Superman costume and sprinting across Mankiewicz's lawn. You can see that anyone can claim anything based on what might have been said or misheard somewhere in the hours and hours of interviews on a DVD.

For an honest claim, there should be no problem in providing exactitude. Obviously, the verbatim quote and a timecode would be best, similar to a book quote with a page number. --Tenebrae 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Film Setting Categories

After a slightly contentious disagreement with User:Xnacional over the infobox on another article, I find myself agreeing with him on the categorization of this film. The official WP description of the Category Category:Films set in the 1970s very overtly states "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1970s, but which were produced at a later date" (emphasis added). Thus by that definition, Superman doesn't really belong here, only in the 1950s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the which were produced at a later date comment from the category page - there are films listed there (such as Time After Time) which don't meet that criteria. I'll be re-adding the category. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. In that case, every movie made in the 1970s would be eligible for that category. Xnacional (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I now (atypically) agree with Xnacional. All of the WP categories "Films set in the...." have as the caveat "not filmed in the 19..s" (on the category page) until TheRealFennShysa edited it out of the 1970s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't say "set in the 1950s" either, because that's probably the shortest of the three segments, and certainly much shorter than the main portion, which was contemporary to the late 1970s (aside from the anachronous part of Superman II which shows men on the moon, of which there were none after ca. 1972). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that although this film may appear to be set in the 1970s, events in subsequent Superman films (retroactively) cast that in doubt. In Superman II, humans appear to have begun to colonize the moon, and in Superman III Superman is pitted against an evil super-computer that is beyond the capacity of early 1980s technology. Finally, in Superman IV more nations have nuclear weapons than was the case in the 1980s. Thus the events of the three subsequent films suggest that this is all set in the near future (say what folks in the 70s might have imagined the early 2000s or 2010s to be like.) If this is true, it would also set the early third of the film not in the 50s, but in the late '80s/early 90s. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In Superman 3 isn't there a "Class of '66" banner at the school reunion? That would seem to imply that the films are set close to the times they came out, apart from Superman Returns which would be set in the early 80's. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps it's just a parallel universe. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

'65 not '66, but this doesn't affect your point (just checked the DVD).--WickerGuy (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall an interview with Donner where he said he tried to impose a 1930s styling on the original film (so it is a film that doesn't easily settle into its own timeframe), so in a way the first film might have been conceived as a 1930s depiction of the 1970s. As with all films set in the future the technological advances are often mis-timed and they nearly always bear the fashions of the time the films are made in - Clark's trench-coat and hat are particularly old fashioned in view of the times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been argued that with both films set in the future and the past, there is always somthing that gives away when it was made. Doctor Zhivago is easily placed in the 60s due to the hair-styles and the time-place anachronism of middle-class Russians playing balalaika as a hobby (a projection of the Western revival of folk guitar in the 60s)--WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section on film nationality

I have not made any of the changes either way or the other, but I have now seen what seems like seven million changes (this weekend I'll actually count them) in the past two months back and forth and back and forth and back and forth over the nationality of the film Superman. Some anonymous editor keeps changing it to US, Canada, England, and others keep changing it back to the USA. Maybe it's time to take it to the talk page. Incidentally, IMDB does in fact list the nationality of the film as all three. I understand the case for US alone is the location of the studio who financed the film. Perhaps it would be an idea to take this issue to the talk page, develop consensus point to WP policy, and in future changes say "refer to talk page". --WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

This has gone on seven times since mid-March. The change to US,Canada,England always comes from an IP address- the change back (once from me) always comes from an established editor. The IP addresses are similar, but not all the same. Established editors IMO should make the case here for the nationality being on the US.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors > IP addresses. Wildroot (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The "country" field is for identifying the nationality of the film, as in the main studio's home country. IMDb is not a reliable source to cite, being user-submitted. The film was produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, which is very much an American studio. To explain this example further, Valkyrie is a film with German subject matter, but it is inherently an American film because it was produced by the American studio United Artists. There are other films in which this is not clear-cut, like Blindness having multiple minor studio involvements, but here with Superman, it's an American film. Filming in locations around the world and enlisting the help of companies in these locations doesn't give it a multi-national level. "American" is the overarching nationality of this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Warner Bros. was not actually involved in the producion of the film. Warner only distributed the film. The film was produced by "Dovemead" (British) and "International Film productions" (Panama) as can be verified at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/66900/Superman/credits. It was copyrighted at the time by the Swiss company "Film Export A.G." ([4]). Principle photography took place at Pinewood, UK. According to Wikipedia rules, the nationality field in the infobox is based on the nationalities of the production companies, which in this case clearly are Panama and UK. Since the film was copyrighted by Film Export A.G. you can make the case that Switzerland is also a production country too. Betty Logan (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in that Warner Brothers is an American Studio. However, let us not forget that Alien is a British film, it was shot in the UK, but the studio is 20th Century Fox! While the princiciple phtotography was shot in the US, there was an undeniable British invlvement in the project on behalf of the Salkinds. The studio responsible for prodcution was Pinewood Studios, a British studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbay (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Imdb info on nationality is NOT user-submitted(!!), only the Imdb sections on Trivia, goofs, and the wiki-sections like plot synopsis are user-submitted. Also that would be "principAL photography" not "principLE photography" and certainly not "princICI(?)ple phT(?)otography"--WickerGuy (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ theme

I don't think it's mentioned in the article that "El" is one of many Hebrew words meaning God or god or a god or something similar. Names such as Michael, Daniel, Israel, Rachel, etc. derive from this and translate as something-of-God or -from-God or the like. Also synagogue names like Beth El (House of God). I don't know if "Jor-El" and "Kal-El" are from the original DC comics, but I do recall that one or both of Superman's creators were Jewish, and might have been quite familiar with "El" names that referred to God or to godly people. PurpleChez (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This would belong in a general article on the character, not in an article about this movie, methinks.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That theory might be undermined by the fact that it was originally "Jor-L". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the theory has some weight, given that the two guys who created Superman were Jewish. Wildroot (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

25 edits in less than 12 hours. Is that a WP record?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the Score

"Nearly all of John Williams' score is restored (some of which was dialed out of the theatrical cut)" - I’m not sure what “dialed out” means. It suggests that the “volume” was turned down, but it can’t be that, as it would be there, albeit not that audible, but that wouldn’t count as a restoration if made more prominent, surely, but a re-mix? This is followed by: "However, at least one noticeable removal occurred: the recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets, heard in the original film in the minutes before the death of Glenn Ford's character, is replaced with a generic piece of instrumental music in the ABC cut." I’ve not seen this version, but isn’t the “generic piece” the John William’s composed cue written for this scene, as can be found on sound-track albums? If so, it doesn’t warrant a “however”, and should be included in the comment about music being restored. Jock123 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The religious aspect of Superman

The men who created Superman instinctively knew that if Superman was to be invincible he would also have to be virtually faultless. Unlike other super heroes, Superman never killed anyone. He was so powerful it was not necessary. Superman would be subject to human weakness only on the emotional (not physical) side and he would have the will power to overcome any shortcomings in this area. No one mortal can do this save one, and there is your comparison. It is not disrespectful to deity in that Superman is fictional and he is good. Otherwise the entire concept does not work20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.253.61 (talk)

From which website did you lift the above essay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of this page (emphasis added)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superman (film) article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That quote, which is obviously lifted from somewhere, might actually be usable in the article, if it were cited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Credits

It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star! 67.239.63.243 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would say there is a better case for elevating MB on Apocalypse Now. His role is small, but dramatically pivotal. Brando was also originally going to have a large part in Superman II (instead of Kal-el's mother). At any rate, for a very long time it has been WP:CONSENSUS to follow the movie credits in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am in favor of a bit more discretion in these cases and the IP has a strong point, but on the odd occasion this debate turns up at the Film project the consensus has always been to follow the film credits. I would actually support a motion to list eponymous characters ahead of the billing order (I think the reason for listing Reeve first is more compelling than listing Sheen first on AN, since Superman is an iconic character so there is a larger degree of interest in who actually plays him), but it's not good practice for this article to simply break ranks, it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film if anyone wants to go down that route. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a short-lived controversy over this at the film article on the 1962 Lolita (1962 film). What's interesting there is that Peter Sellers has higher billing over Sue Lyon on both the film poster and film preview, but NOT the actual film opening credits!! Someone trying to enforce credit order over dozens of film articles insisted on pushing him up, and I kept him demoted on the grounds that we could choose and the film credits was more sensible.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Showing on Network Television

The last showing of Superman was on CBS on Saturday April 26, 1986 not in 1985. From Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

According to what source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Note

Is mentioning that reviewers noted similarity between Superman and Jesus necessary in the opening section of the page? When you read it is rather confusing and in my opinion irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMelton (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Casting of Superman

I've noticed some of the information has been transferred to another section. The reason certain info was placed in the Development section had due to do with the chronological accuracy, meaning which specific actors were being considered at a certain time. It was more historically accurate. Now it gives the impression that one Richard Donner was hired that all that casting fell under him. Wildroot (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lois Lane original research

There has been some recent edits which I consider detrimental to the article.

• The first one involves alterations to the cast order for the film. The cast order should either follow the credits as presented in the film, or if unconventional (such as order of appearance, alphabetical) follow the order as presented in authoritative secondary sources as per WP:FILMCAST: It is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources. They should not be re-ordered according to an editor's own sense of importance. The fact remains that Christopher Reeve is only third-billed in the film and Margot Kidder comes much later in the credit list. This has already been discussed above at Talk:Superman (film)#Credits.

• The second issue, is the bloating of Margot Kidder's character summary. I have major problems with the following statements that have been added:

1. "the beautiful, sexy, and feisty reporter at the Daily Planet who becomes a romantic interest for Clark Kent." (character appraisal and an incorrect statement; at no point is she a "romantic interest").
2. "She is a careerist with a one track mind, who lets nothing stand in the way of breaking the next big story and scooping rival reporters while ignoring the potential consequences that sometimes put her in peril." (this is reading things into the film; I do not recall her scooping anyone. Also, taking risks is not the same as "ignoring all consequences", so it is subjective)
3. " her stories tend to be sensationalist (such as the title of her interview with Superman: "I Spent the Night with Superman")" (the title alone does not indicate the nature of her story)
4. "Despite this, she is very arrogant ... believing that her stories are worthy of awards such as the Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes" (the first part is subjective, the second is not supported by the plot)
5. "Her intelligence is questionable due to her being unable to recognize Clark and Superman as the same person, despite having the closest contact with both of them." (drawing conclusions; after all nobody else figures it out)
6. "She has almost nothing but contempt and disrespect for Clark." (completely subjective)
7. " However, she is madly in love with Superman." (this is highly debatable in the first film; at no point does she declare her love for him)
8. "Although she tries appearing tough, this exterior melts when she is around or is thinking about Superman, and she becomes soft and vulnerable and loses all her sexual inhibitions" (she clearly doesn't lose all "sexual inhibitions")
9. "Ultimately, Lois Lane conforms to traditional female stereotypes, as she is inferior to her man in every way. " (Lois is at the forefront of a male dominated profession in the 1970s, so I would say she clearly breaches female stereotypes)

Most of the content that has been added is unencylopedic WP:INUNIVERSE detail, and much of it is unsupported by the plot of the film itself. All analysis and interpretive claims of plot and character summaries need to be referenced per WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Move

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

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Now that the second film has survived AfD, everyone seems to either support the move or be undecided. And this is well in line with policy. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Superman (film) → Superman (1978 film) – Per WP:NCF. Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated. Superman (1997 film) is here on Wikipedia as well, so this disambiguation is incomplete. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That other article is currently being proded on the grounds that it does not meet notability standards. It would make sense to wait here since if the other film's page is deleted there is no issue.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the other film is now at AFD I would suggest that we wait a few more days to close this discussion, until the AFD is closed since any issues regarding this potential move will be cleared up one way or another.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Other film has been de-prodded. Move this per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Undecided - right now, we have some incomplete dab titles redirect to one specific work, like Thriller (album). Unlike Titanic (film), obviously people are searching for the very old film. See examples in WP:PDAB, currently an essay. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but note that Thriller (album) is a redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). The title of the article is what matters here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Put on hold I have nominated the other article for deletion because it fails notability. This article only needs to be moved if the other article is retained; if it is retained then the move should go ahead per WP:NCF. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Betty. Let's see if the 1997 film is a notable topic first. If it is, I would support the move. Iron Man (2008 film) got a similar treatment due to the 1931 film, and the world didn't end. It's just a way to better organize topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You can vote "support", Erik. The AFD will result as "keep". George Ho (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support assuming a successful defense of the 1997 film at AfD. Red Slash 00:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as the 1997 film is now rolling into WP:SNOWBALL territory, and will almost certainly be kept. bd2412 T 16:09, 22 November 2013 (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.

How do I know this movie takes place in the 1950s?

This movie is in the category "movies set in the 1950s", but I find nothing in the article itself that implies that, all I could find is the fact it's inspired by that decade, that doesn't mean it takes place in the 1950's.

So I ask again, how do we know? There isn't any sub-text in the movie itself that gives the exact year or decade the movie takes place in. In fact it does feel to me that the movie takes place in the 1970's instead. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a long time since I have seen it but isn't the Smallville segment set in the 1950s? They have 50s style clothes, 50s style hairstyles and the car radio is playing 50s hits at one point from what I recall. That said I wouldn't oppose removing all the "set in" categories if there is nothing explicit to establish it is set in 50s or 70s. Betty Logan (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Very true Betty. The only date mentioned in the film is when Lex Luthor says that that Krypton exploded in 1948 and that to took the baby Superman 3 years to travel to Earth which would make it 1951 when the Kents found him.SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Smallville segment is just the beginning of the movie. Not most of it, so I'm removing the category. There is very little time in the movie spent showing Clark Kent as a kid/teenager, most of it is about him being a news reporter who has the alter ego Superman. In my opinion this category should only have movies where the majority of it takes place at a specific time, which is clearly not the case with this movie. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lex Luthor states that Superman said in the interview with Lois that Krypton exploded in 1948, and he (Superman) travelelled 3 years to get to earth. In the Fortress of solitude, Jor_el tells Clark he is 18 years old, so that makes him in high school between 1962 and 1966. The part of the movie where Clark becomes superman seems to take place in the late 70s, more than likely the year of the movie 1978, which would make Clark 30 years old. Though we don't know the year when he becomes superman, we do know his High school years were in the 60s not 50s. So, I guess the movie took place in the 40s, 50s,60s and 70s. ~unsigned.

Plot: Timeline

While the article stated that Kal-El's ship arrived on Earth three years after its departure from, and the destruction of, Krypton, Jor-El's image in the Fortress of Solitude states that "By now... I will have been dead for many thousands of your years." Also, assuming Kal-El arrived on Earth as a three-year-old, the "teenage Clark" section would occur 15 years later, rather that eighteen as previously stated. Edited. Ilumnatr (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The second part would be true, as simple arithmetic. The first part sounds like a contradiction, except that it's apparently assumed that the ship was traveling near light-speed, so while thousands of years passed in "normal time", only three years passed for Kal-El. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But how can it be thousands of years when Lex Luthor tells his accomplices that in the interview Superman says Krypton was destroyed in 1948 and it took him three years to get to Earth, and Clark goes to the Daily Planet in 1978 (when he was 30, 18+12 years) when he reveals himself as Superman. Jor-el also says by the time you hear this it would be many thousands of your years, so Kal-El didn't only age 3 years in thousands of years, but it seems earth years go faster than Krypton years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a movie. They make mistakes in movies all the time. DonQuixote (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do make mistakes in the Movies all the time, but this one did not, if you listen to all the dialogue about Krypton exploding and superman coming to earth. Many sci fi stories have solar systems (or planets) where times passes differently than the rest of the universe do to time dilation in that area only. Jor-El says in your time as you on Earth reckon it will be 100os of years ago, but Lex quotes Superman in the interview as saying Krypton exploded in 1948 (earth time) and it took him three years to get here. This goes perfectly with selective space time dialation, not the ship taking 1000s of years and Calrk only aging three years because of time didaltion through space travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Straying into forum but...time dilation affects all three reference frames (Krypton, rocket, Earth). None of the reference frames will have the same passage of time (and you mean gravitational+speed time dilation when you say "selective" time dilation). Three years for Clark in the rocket won't be three years Earth time (in fact his time will be much much less because of speed time dilation and he's the one accelerating into Earth's reference frame). And also, time dilation means that you observe other reference frames experiencing a slower passage of time, so in fact, from Earth's perspective less time has passed on Krypton (so not 1000s of years). But what I've just said is original research. And so is what you said above. DonQuixote (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is based on all the move quotes and the fact that with traveling at light speed, to the one in the ship it is instantaneous, but there is normal time to those in the regular flow of time. Those who say the ship took 1000s of years to get from Krypton to Earth are doing original research by ignoring all the statements in the movie. Or if I am using original research and they are, then whose original research should stand. I would guess neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's original research because your physics is wrong as well as the film not mentioning anything about "traveling at light speed". DonQuixote (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some of my explanations uses assumed propositions, so would be considered original research. But so was the original text I changed. I agree with your new version. It gets rid of mine and the other's original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And still let's know how much time passed for Kal-el and for Krypton 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They never mention time dilation, or where the 100s of years passed, Earth or Krypton. This is science fiction you know, where time dilation can only happen to planets but not the rest of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think time dialation should be removed as original research.

Time inconsistencies revisited

• An anonymous editor keeps changing the text regarding the length of time of Superman's voyage to Earth as a baby, regarding the "thousands of years" reference. From what we know from the film:

1. Kal-El arrives on Earth at an unspecified time as a toddler. The Kents seem to be driving a depression era vehicle (certainly no earlier than a 1930s model).
2. The high school sequence is also set during an unspecified time period, although the music and clothes would seem to date it to the 1950s.
3. We possibly see a very young Lois (pre-teen) on the train as Clark races it. At this stage Clark is a biologically a few years older than Lois
4. At the Fortress of Solitude Jor-El tells Superman "By now you will have reached your eighteenth year as it is measured on earth. By that same reckoning I will have been dead for many thousands of your years."
5. He spends twelve years at the Fortress of Solitude.
6. In the interview with Lois he declines to tell her his age.
7. Lex Luther states "According to that interview the planet Krypton blew up on May 23, 1948. "The rocket carrying the revolting little freak took three years to reach Earth."

The timescale has a ton of contradictions in it. The production was very troubled so it is possible they are continuity errors, but if we put that aside there are several plausible explanations: i) Jor-El did indeed get his years confused, although he seems to be referencing Earth years by giving Clark's biological human age; ii) Superman misleads Lois in the interview either wilfully or inadvertently; iii) Lois misunderstands some of the more complicated physics; iv) Luther simply misquotes the interview, based on his own calculations. There are several different interpretations so the plot summary should try to just outline the basic story without getting into irrelevant and contradictory plot points i.e. he arrives on Earth as toddler (however long it takes) and grows up to be Superman. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, much is vague in the movie. But...

1. The common assumption, not verified, is that the part of the movie where Clark goes to work for the daily planet and becomes Superman is the 1978 due to the lingo, outfits and cars.
2. You assume that the movie has continuity errors (original research), instead of using what the movie says combined.
3. Superman says he does not lie, so he would not have lied to Lois.
4. Lex Luthor says "In the interview he says, "that the Planet Krypton...exploded in 1948. That ridiculous little freak...took three years in a rocket to get to earth.
5. If you the things the movie say: Krypton exploding in 1948, Clark in the interview taking three years to travel to earth, Jorel saying he was 18 at the first time at the fortress, Jorell saying he would train for 12 years. You add those up then 1948 + 18 years (including the 3 year travel) + 12 years at the Fortress, then that makes 30 years which brings you to 1978.
6. The movie never mentions time dilation or how many years opass on earth, just how long Jor-El was dead.
7. So Jor-El could have been wrong. We don't know. So the theory that only the space around Krypton was time dilated is no more original research then ignoring what Clark, who says he does not lie, shares in the Lois interview. Saying Lois is wrong or Luthor is wrong but Jor-El is right is original research as well.

So to come to consensus I think we ought to change it to "Clark lands on Earth at three years of age". Drop 1000s of years and time dilation. OR add a section of time inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with the compromise wording and to leave time dilation out of the summary because it is not all that essential to the plot, but I feel you are misunderstanding some basic principles of physics which should be addressed. Time dilation must have occurred on some level on an intergalactic voyage i.e. the faster your velocity, the more time dilates. This is a scientific fact that has been proven under experimental conditions. Time even dilates when you ride your bicycle, it is just negligible for you at those speeds. If super-fast speeds are sustained on an intergalactic voyage the effects will be significant. We know that Kal-El passes through six galaxies, so even if Krypton is located in a galaxy in the Local Group it must be at least 200,000 light years away. For instance, if you travel for three years at 90% the speed of light you will age roughly 1.5 years over that duration. If you travel for three years at 95% the speed of light you will age less than 1 year. The faster you go the more time dilates. Obviously travelling close to the speed of light would only burn 3 light years off your journey, so either the ship travels at much greater speeds than the speed of light (which if possible would propel the ship back in time rendering the whole discussion moot) or the journey takes much longer than three years. For example, if you travel at 0.99999995% the speed of light for 10,000 years then you will age approximately 3 years. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I 100% believe in time dilation. I was only saying that rather he took 1000s of years, but only aged three or rather he only travelled three, but only the Krypton area time dilated which happens in sci fi all the time, are both opinions aka point of view, so a compromise is needed. Also there is the theory that no time passes in the ship when you go light speed, but a lot of time passes outside of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Question how has time dilation been proven fact under experimental conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just Kidding 96.228.48.108 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another time inconsistency: In the Expanded Edition of the movie, after Superman rescues Air Force One, he visits his father at the Fortress. Jor-El tells him he (Superman) cannot serve humanity 28 hours a day. Superman corrects him, ("24"). Jor-El responds, "Or 24... as it is in Earth time." Just1thing (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not an inconsistency, it's just different scales...like yard vs meter or pound vs Newton. DonQuixote (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Title

The opening claims the movie has an alternate title, Superman: The Movie. This doesn't appear onscreen, and aside from colloquial references, where is it called that? In any Warner Bros. source? On redone titles onscreen in home media? This seems a case of people repeating secondhand information that, once you trace it back, may not even be true. Could we get some reference on this, please?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times has it listed as an alternate title, but whether it was ever used in any formal context (i.e. an English-language release) I couldn't really say. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Betty. Yeah, I see it has "Superman: The Movie, Superman the Movie", so this purported alternate title doesn't appear to be precise. Also, that's syndicated content from All Media Guide and not done by New York Times editorial staff. I'll keep looking to see if this was a release title somewhere — or even a marketing title that Warner Bros. used. Otherwise, I get the feeling Wikipedia has been perpetrating an urban (well, cinematic) myth. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple Google Image Search offers plenty of proof that the film was (and still is) formally marketed as "Superman: The Movie". That form of the title – as spelled out in the trademarked logo for the film – can be found on contemporary ads, VHS boxes, modern DVD/Blu-Ray covers, original soundtrack albums, book and DC comics tie-ins, and even a 1979 calendar if you need something with an obvious contemporary date on it. Skepticism is nice, but excluding something that is common knowledge just because it isn't part of your own knowledge is unconstructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I have belatedly reverted a three-month old edit to a sentence that has been stable since December 2015. Superman is informally known as Superman: The Movie but it was not marketed that way, certainly not on its 1978 release. Warner Bros. markets the DVD release as that — though the onscreen title hasn't changed — and movies sometimes are marketed with a title change for home video ... but that doesn't change the title of the movie or the way the original release was marketed. The stable version is the more accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013013543/http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036/ to http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908200137/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083159/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081943/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082945/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211233340/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205075839/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082009/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081634/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083001/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710193902/http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/ to http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/10top10.pdf?docID=381&AddInterest=1781

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Inflation info

I recently added inflation-adjusted numbers in parentheses for the movie's earnings to help put it in context (I hate articles that just give me dollar amounts from decades ago without giving me an idea how that compares to today). Betty Logan deleted these with the following perplexing comment:

You can't adjust global earnings by US inflation and adjusted data doesn't belong in the lead anyway

Not really clear to me what this is supposed to mean.

• Why can't a U.S. dollar amount from the 70s be converted to an equivalent amount in the 2010s? Where the money originated is irrelevant. One could argue that the potential earnings today might be different if the film was released today in other parts of the world I guess but still what does that have to do with anything?
• Why does this clarification not belong in the lead? The lead is literally the most important place in the article to be clear.

-- MC

Comment I have nothing against inflation adjustment and I think it can be helpful when it is used properly but in this case I don't think it added anything to the article. I will take each of your three points in turn:

1. You are wrong that it does not matter where the money is earned. Inflation is economy based and inflation using the US consumer price index (which is the inflator you used in this article to adjust a worldwide gross) does not occur in countries such as the UK, Japan or France. Therefore while it is legitimate to inflate the US gross using US CPI—although that is not the only way—it is not legitimate to inflate worldwide grosses as you did using US CPI, because it is not applicable outside the United States. To look at it another way, you wouldn't inflate UK dollar grosses using US ticket price inflation, because what has essentially happened is that the film has earned the money in British pounds (dependent on the price of UK tickets) and then converted into dollars dependent on the exchange rate for that year. Guinness World Records recently published a list of the top 10 grossing films films worldwide, adjusted for inflation, and they way they did it was by estimating the total number of tickets the film sold globally adjusted by the approximate ticket prices in various parts of the world.
2. Secondly, inflation is not a particularly great way of presenting context and often there are better ways. The film industry has changed a lot in recent years: an expanding global market means films are earning more money than ever before globally even after factoring inflation in, and because the re-release market has died out due to home video and TV that means that many films earn less in the domestic market adjusted for inflation because they don't get multiple releases. For example, a film wouldn't earn $1.5 billion today domestically like Gone with the Wind because that film built its gross up over many releases, so inflation does not provide great context on its own. Likewise, the $200 million adjusted figure that Superman cost to make is a typical blockbuster budget in today's global market, but back in the 1970s it was an unpredented amount for the cost of a film. Which do you think provides more context? A figure of $200 million that is comparable to many modern-day budgets or explicitly stating it was the most expensive film ever made up to that point? In this capacity it is the record and not the figure that provides the context. Likewise, saying the film grossed $1.1 billion—based on a dubious calculation—doesn't provide any more context than saying the film was the second biggest release of 1978. A ranking is a lot more universal than an inflation adjustment because it neutralises conditions such as an expanding global market and the collapse of the re-release market.
3. Finally, an inflation adjusted figure is not hard data; it is the result of a calculation that is dependent on your choice of price index so an adjusted figure should not really be presented in the lead as a hard fact. Gone with the Wind (film) doesn't have any figures at all in the lead and saves them for the "audience response" section where it contextualises each figure, sometimes with ranks, sometimes with admisions, and in one case with inflation adjusted data.

As I said at the start of my comment I have nothing against inflaton adjustments where appropriate, and funnily enough I actually added an inflation-adjusted table to an article just this evening; however, it is important that adjustment is undertaken correctly and we should bear in mind it is only one technique for providing context and sometimes there are better ways of doing that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of your underlying points but, with all due respect, you are over-thinking. Granted inflation-adjusted numbers are always somewhat hokey and there are always competing notions as to what index scheme to use. Wikipedia, in general, has chosen conventional price indices of each currency as a standard, which is very reasonable. The notion that it is wrong to index worldwide grosses using the U.S. CPI is illogical. By that same argument I could say that it is wrong to report total grosses in U.S. dollars because the conversion rates between all those currencies is always changing. So if you object the notion of using the U.S. CPI you must also object to using a single figure in a single currency. To the extent that it is legitimate to summarize grosses in a single currency it is equally legitimate to indicate what the equivalent amount of that currency would be today (regardless of whether the film could actually earn that much today, etc. etc.). Granted in both cases there are important caveats (many of them the same caveats) but at some point you have to accept that the article is a summary of some very complex information and, provided it is not misleading to its purpose, the summarization is acceptable if it educates the reader.

And to your other point, ranking historical films based on their revenues is a pointless exercise IMHO. To the extent that revenues are discussed to indicate how much they enriched the producers, the information is meaningful (which was what I was trying to convey). But using that to indicate the relative popularity or significance of the film is totally pointless. There are too many other variables over time to say that revenue has any meaningful correlation with popularity no matter how you measure it. So to me concerns about how inflation adjustment "neutralises conditions such as an expanding global market ..." are worrying about nothing as ranking based on revenue is not useful.

-- MC

In cases where sometimes as much as 80% of the money was grossed outside of the United States you can't adjust by US CPI or US ticket price inflation because the inflation index doesn't apply to most of the figure. Essentially what people are doing when they adjust box-office for inflation is to ask how much the film would have grossed today if it had sold the exact same number of tickets in each territory. You can't calculate that answer by just using a US inflation measure because there are countries around the world that have had very different inflation rates to the US (e.g. China, Russia). There is an entirely valid reason why box-office trackers like Box Office Mojo doesn't do inflated worldwide charts it and only have an adjusted US chart. And because Wikipedia doesn't do WP:Original research we don't create entirely "new" information as you are proposing. You also completely avoided my point that qualifying a figure in its historical context is more useful than just inflating it: telling a reader that Superman's $55 million budget was the most expensive budget up to that point provides the reader with more insight into the unprecedented nature of the budget than simply telling them its value inflates to $200 million, which won't mean much to them at all unless you provide some context for that figure. By simply telling a reader the budget inflates to $200 million what information exactly are you trying to convey? What does the reader get out of knowing $55 million is worth $200 million today? I am all for including inflation adjusted figures when they provide the reader with meaningful information but I don't support throwing numbers at readers just for the sake of it, which I think is ultimately what you are advocating. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with Betty Logan. I don't believe it's helpful to use simplistic math that doesn't recognize there's no real apples-to-apples comparison. Having contextual prose is much more useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874964259
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874611974
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618040335/http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm to http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"as titled onscreen"

See Ghostbusters (2016 film) and Die Hard 2, among other films later marketed under a title that is not the onscreen title. Someone erroneously wrote in an edit summary that MOS precludes clarity and an explanation, but it does not. It doesn't say anything at all about it, actually. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The article does not mention the problems that timetravel causes.

The article does not mention that, although the time travel could work at the very end of a 1-off movie, it causes such severe plot and logical problems, that it not only was never done again in sequels, but not even mentioned again. We have 2 problems:

• Timetravel destroys all stakes.
• Timetravel causes extreme logical problems.

If we have time travel, all problems can be undone. It totally destroys all stakes. as a "Deus Ex Machina" at the end of a 1-off, it works.

Superman should have encountered himself in the past. As grand finally of a 1-shot, this is not a problem because the Movie ends. The audience might figure that we have 2 Supermen, 1 for each missile, and will see both in future movies, but this causes problems in the sequels.

all future sequels never referenced Superman timetravelling. Basically, the sequels pretend that time travel never happened. It is retconned away.

Future D. C. comics, movies, et cetera kept the option of timetravel, but it is always extremely difficult and has terrible sideeffects. Basically, it is something one only attempts for saving the world, after it is destroyed, and always has horrendous sideeffects such as the world being transforming into a despotic nightmare where Donald Trump won the 2016 Election instead of Hilary Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:2830:AD79:A89E:341A:EC41 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Superman (1978 film) → Superman: The Movie – Superman: The Movie stands as the official trademark recognized by Warner Bros., affirming its legal and authoritative status for the film. This designation is prominently featured in extensive promotional materials, cementing its place as the WP:OFFICIAL title. Significantly, as the inaugural Superman film following its television and serial appearances, the title holds cultural importance, justifying its "movie" status use as the WP:COMMONNAME. Also noteworthy is the consistent reference to the movie as Superman: The Movie in all past and current home media releases, both digital and physical. This change should have been made decades ago, but with a new Superman movie releasing next year, I thought it would be best to bring this article to light now. The only counter-argument I see being brought to light is the absence of the subtitle in the movie's opening credits. There are numerous examples of the titles of Wikipedia articles of movies differing from their on-screen title. (Examples: Fast & Furious 6 is titled Furious 6 on-screen. + Garfield: The Movie is titled Garfield on-screen.) ScottSullivan01 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Science Fiction has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Supporting my own requested move as per above. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no need to !vote yourself if you are the nominator. See WP:RMCOMMENT. Please refrain from doing so in future RMs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel like Superman: The Movie and Superman are used pretty interchangeably across reliable sources, and I feel like this is a case where natural disambiguation isn't necessarily better than parenthetical disambiguation. If Superman alone is a valid title too, and the release year in parentheses exists, that places the film better for readers' searching and locking in. Then again, most readers will find their way to this article anyway if they're really looking for it, either in Google or in the Wikipedia search drop-down where it would say "1978 film by Richard Donner" under a hypothetical Superman: The Movie. Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Superman: The Movie is not the title of the film, it is the title used on posters for marketing purposes. The claim that the official, trademarked title is "Superman: The Movie" is false; the billing block at the bottom of the original poster, official copyright filing at the U.S. Copyright Office, MPAA certificate, and Library of Congress item all say Superman. The Google Search knowledge graph, IMDb, Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, The Numbers, and TVGuide all use Superman; Rotten Tomatoes is the only outlier. It is the longstanding consensus of the film project to use the actual title of films at the time of its release, even if an alternative name is more NATURAL. NATURAL and CONSISTENT are two policies that editors largely agree are not relevant to film titles. You can see this consensus reflected on many articles, including Star Wars (film) (marketed as A New Hope), F9 (film) (marketed as The Fast Saga), X2 (film) (marketed as X-Men United), Ghostbusters (2016 film) (marketed as Answer the Call), etc. See also Dune (2021 film) (also known as Part One), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (also known as Volume Three), Dark Phoenix (film) (also known as X-Men: Dark Phoenix), etc. Simply Superman is also commonly used in reliable third-party sources, if not the most common name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  On the flip side, readers who stream the film will see Superman: The Movie at Max, YouTube, Google Play, Vudu, Apple TV, Microsoft, Spectrum. Only Amazon shows just Superman. At the same time, looking for mentions of "Superman" and "1978" in Google Books in the last two years tends to show just Superman. Essentially, I don't think it's clear-cut but explained above why I lean toward parenthetical disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Those sites are directly fed by WBD/Max (as made clear on several of them), so they really only count as one source. YouTube and Google Play in particular run the same infrastructure. No idea what's going on with Prime Video, but I suspect it is probably linked with Amazon-owned IMDb like Google/YouTube. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support I never understand the decision to have "Movie Title (year film)" when there's very clearly a more WP:NATURAL way to title the page. And in response to InfiniteNexus' other examples- I think most of them should be retitled anyways. Dune (2021) should be just Dune: Part One. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  There was just an RM a few days ago that ended with a SNOW close. The consensus is overwhelmingly clear. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per IN above and WP:COMMONNAME. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Superman: The Movie is incorrect for the article title as it was used for promotional purposes. Despite some WP:NATURAL arguments which could be made, is probably not the best course of action here, as Infinite outlined above. More readers are likely searching for this as either the Richard Donner Superman film or the 1978 Superman film. Keeping Superman: The Movie as a redirect is just fine. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Regular Oppose, following my comments and others, due to fairly interchangeable titles and parenthetical disambiguation being more useful than natural disambiguation here. On the off-chance readers do think of this film as Superman: The Movie, redirects and that name in the opening sentence will guide them anyway. No need to change the status quo. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is good evidence provided above that Superman: The Movie is not actually the official title of the film, and considering the number of Superman movies there are I feel that the year disambig is beneficial to everyone either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Just doesn't make any sense to ignore the cultural signifcance of this being the first movie. Superman: THE MOVIE. Even producer Ilya Salkind's movie Santa Claus: The Movie includes the subtitle, despite "The Movie" never appearing on-screen. Superman: The Movie makes the most sense. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think "being the first movie" matters in terms of naming? I don't think there's an outright "winner" with either title. For what it's worth, it looks like Mamma Mia! (film), Tom & Jerry (2021 film), and Scooby-Doo (film), and Batman (1966 film) have all been called "The Movie". I don't think there are any grounds to accord this film a specific title out of cultural significance. It's a matter of which one is more commonly used, and since the evidence varies depending on context, I'm okay with a more specifically grounded parenthetical disambiguation over the natural one. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is a reason Warner Bros. sells the movie digitally and physically as Superman: The Movie. That's what people in 1978 knew it as! Dune's onscreen title is Dune: Part One, yet we go off what it is/was sold as. We now have two theatrical films called Superman. We might as well call this one by its full title. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  People in 1978 also knew it as "Richard Donner's Superman" or just "Superman", though only one of those is the correct title of the film. "Superman: The Movie" was for promotional purposes and is not a title used in the film itself. This is an unnecessary change that arguably could make some readers more confused by signaling this one out as the definitive "The Movie" when there are other Superman movies out there. It doesn't hurt to be more specific in this disambiguation than trying to shoehorn in a marketing gimmick as if it were the actual title of the work. That'd be like titled Avengers: Endgame "Marvel Studios' Avengers: Endgame", and I should note this is not the same case as with renaming The Avengers (2012 film) to Marvel's The Avengers, the latter of which is what that film is officially and legally called. That is not the case here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I accept Superman: The Movie as an alternative title in general. But remember that many people have been born since 1978, and there are also many people in the world that do not follow Superman lore closely. If this film was strictly called Superman: The Movie all the time, I would accept that as the article title, but it's not. Regarding the new film, I think it is even more reason to choose parenthetical disambiguation for both rather than natural disambiguation for the former. With parenthetical disambiguation, both films are more clearly set in their point in time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Not sure why this has to be a discussion. Even James Gunn, who I hate, said on Instagram that Superman: The Movie is the title of the original film. Let's get this process sped up, friends. Even though I swore off Wikipedia forever, I had to make an account just for this nonsense. MyReview-AaronFischer (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  James Gunn did not make Richard Donner's 1978 film, which is officially titled Superman. His statements are irrelevant here, and just because his new film has the same title does not mean it holds any baring for this one being renamed. The current disambiguation falls in line with WikiProject general consensus across this site and naming conventions. Such a move would be incorrect. We have policies and guidelines for a reason, please familiarize yourself with WP:OFFICIALNAME vs WP:COMMONAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:NCFILMS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  What James Gunn says has not relevance to this discussion, nor does your comment Even though I swore off Wikipedia forever, I had to make an account just for this nonsense. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Whilst I accept that Superman: The Movie is a title by which the film is referred to and would be an acceptable choice if we applied natural disambiguation, we are not required to do so, it is simply an option. It is the convention on film articles (as set out at WP:NCFILMDAB) to go with the common name and to disambiguate that using some variant of the (film) disambiguator. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying you'd be good with Superman: The Movie (film)? I just think including the full title now that we have two film articles on Wikipedia will be called Superman. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Except, as others have said, that is not the full title. That was a marketing title. The official title is still "Superman". Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support Reviewers and journalists use timesaving abbreviations, so they're not the best source for confirmation. Of course Superman is the main part of the title, but that doesn't make it the full title. The most reliable sources are the official posters and home media, almost all of which identify it by its full title. "The Movie" is very visibly not a tagline, but a continuation of the title following a colon, so it's not just "marketing." The complete name is Superman: The Movie. Swordofneutrality (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Incorrect, the posters and the films itself often do not identify the actual title. That can usually be found in the billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: the original title of the film is just Superman, while Superman: The Movie was the name used for marketing purpose. Not only the film is widely known just as Superman, but if we move this page, we should move several pages just like some users before me reported in this discussion. Redjedi23 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker were all titled with their episode numbers onscreen. But Wikipedia goes by their marketed titles. The title for this article should so obviously include "The Moive". ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  What? That is not the same case at all. The "Episode" titles for those Star Wars films were included because that is how those specific franchise films used titles in the past, though officially and in the poster and trailers, the logo is displayed and film is called without the episode in the titles. "Episode VII" is not the same as "The Movie", given "Episode VII" is more commonly and officially referred to as "The Force Awakens" (even though some call it by that episode title, whereas "Superman: The Movie" is not as commonly called that outside of promos, and even then, a commonly used name for a film, whether it be used on screen, in promos, etc. should not override the official title of a film on Wikipedia. We have redirects for these for a reason. The year disambiguation actually provides a more clear path for readers to take than if we had this one use "The Movie" while others are more specifically disambiguated. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Those aren't the "marketed titles", those are the official titles. Again, it is common for films to display slightly different titles onscreen or on posters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and to reduce ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the other oppose comments, both commonname and most recognizable name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Marketing does not dictate the name of a film. It's on-screen title does. —scarecroe (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert #1 & #2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 29 March 2024 Betty Logan (talk) made a total of four reverts in under 4 hours. I reported this editor for WP:4RR (Four Revert Rule) but the ruling was "no violation."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

However, the matter of the four reverts still remains, so, I will review them one by one, and in the spirit of collaboration, kindly ask the WP community (including Betty Long) for their input regarding them.

Revert #1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_(1978_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216158809 at 12:38, 29 March 2024‎

Edit Summary: "Not in source from what I can tell"

Line in question: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)"

The editor deleted the second part of the line: (over $250 million in 2023 dollars).

Revert #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_(1978_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1216159757 at 12:48, 29 March 2024

Edit Summary: None.

The editor deleted the first part of the line: "The film required the largest budget in Hollywood up to that point at $55 million."

The source, as described in the footnote: Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

The source, specifically, is a physical magazine that on pages 34-37 contains the information from which the above line is fashioned; however, the link (when one clicks on it) leads to an official on-line teaser produced by the editor of the magazine, as stated on the website: "The following is from the introduction to LIFE’s new special issue on Superman, available at newsstands and online." As such, it does not make reference to pp.34-37 and to the above line, unless one purchases the magazine to access that information; however, I can attest that that line is in the magazine since I have it in my hands.

Now, with that clarification, I ask the WP community if the magazine is a reliable source of information? Should the line stand? Should the link in the footnote be deleted to avoid confusion? And finally, should the revert be reverted?

Thanks again for your input!

MiztuhX (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This is the net effect of MiztuhX's edits. This is the net effect of my edits. It was a sequence of four consecutive edits (which Wikipedia policy treats as a single edit) and took into account a concern expressed by MiztuhX on my talk page. As you can see, the net effect of my edits was to change two things: the first change removed the inflation adjusted budget because the figure was not in the accompanying source. Even if it can be properly sourced, I question whether it should be included, as I don't see much point in adding inflation adjusted figures just for the sake of adding inflation adjusted figures. Inflation adjusted figures are generally only added to articles to provide a basis of comparison, which doesn't seem to be the case here. The second change I initiated was to relocate the budget to the production section where the budget is already discussed, because I didn't see the point in repeating information and it didn't belong in the box-office section anyway. It should also be noted that MiztuhX reported me at ANI but the case was swiftly dismissed, simply because there were no multiple reverts, just a single partial revert consistent with WP:BRD. Most of MiztuhX's edits were left intact bar a couple of minor adjustments. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Good morning/afternoon/evening, Wikipedians:

@Betty Logan: Before I begin, I reiterate my invitation to all Wikipedians to please read and participate in this forum, as it is only through your involvement that Wikipedia will become better.

I also would like to give notice to the WP community that within 24 hours I would like to place the following template (barring any objections, of course) on the disputed line in the article in order to alert WP readers of the controvery, so as to provide a warning to not rely on this information, while it is under dispute; and to invite them to discuss it on the article Talk Page.

Now, with regards to Betty Logan (talk)'s repsonse in the last post: It appears that the editor is taking on a macroview perspective of the four edits, claiming an agrument that the ends justifies the means (IMHO); while I am taking on a mircoview interpretation of this event, reviewing the details of each step before reaching a conclusion.

At any rate, I believe it’s important to look at each individual edit to gain a better understanding of what transpired:

First, one must define what is a "revert" as opposed to an "edit." According to WP:3RR, The Three-Revert Rule states:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page–whether involving the same or different material–within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert (my highlight). Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."

Thus, Betty Logan performed "a series of four consecutive edits that [undid] and/or manually [reversed] other editors' actions–whether in whole or in part, [and it] count[ed] as a revert... combined with other edit-warring behavior (see below)."

Thus, the editor misrepresented WP:3RR when the editor previously stated: "It was a sequence of four consecutive edits (which Wikipedia policy treats as a single edit)" which is wrong. It is treated as a "revert."

Also, under: What Edit Warning Is, Betty Logan was obligated to: “When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page”

The editor left no edit summaries or notices on:

Edit# 2, Edit# 4, MiztuhX Talk Page|Talk Page, Talk:Superman (1978 film).

After Betty Logan made the two edits I contacted Betty Logan (talk) twice on 15:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) and 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC). This was after the editor had already made two edits. My response was to alert the editor that I was in disagreement with the edits and to ask the editor to revert them. The editor's reply was to justify the edits in no uncertain terms, to not discuss them, and to continue to make two additional edits.

Since I had already expressed my disagreement to the edits, and Betty Logan continued nonetheless to make edits, Betty Logan was in violation of WP:3RR as these "edits" were now considered "reverts" after notification of disagreement by another editor.

The editor's response to my contact was gruff, as if the edits were not a matter of discussion and they were already a done deal: "I have relocated the budget to a more organic placement in the article (the box-office section is not the appropriate section for production elements). Specific claims need to be sourced, so if the inflation adjusted budget is not in the provided source, (bold mine) then it should not be included. In the future, if you wish to discuss article content please initiate a discussion on the article talk page so the discussion is archived in the article's history. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2024"

One can see that Betty Logan was not interested in any collaboration or discussion while the editor made two arbitrary edits, considered a revert; instead, the editor appeared to not want any input, and issued edicts and expressed strong opinions about how the article should be organized.

At the same time, Betty Logan also stated that the information that I had added to the article was not in the source material and would be discarded, despite Betty Logan appearing to not have consulted the source (magazine) since I am privy to the source material and can attest to its content, which is the reason why I posted it.

Finally, the editor dismissed my attempt at conciliation and instructed me to direct my comments to the article talk page, when according to Wikipedia policy (above), it was the editor's responsibility to inititate discussion on my talk page or on the article talk page as this editor was the one who had initiated the process by making two edits, which became a "revert" upon my notification which the editor ignored, and by making two additional edits, in effect, made two additional "reverts" for a total of three reverts in a 24-hour period and in violation of WP:3RR.

After dismissing my concerns as an editor, Betty Logan then promptly made two more edits; however, since the editor was aware that another editor was in disagreement, the editor should have immediately stopped reverting to discuss the issues on the appropriate pages but failed to do so

In my defense, I never once engaged in a revert because I did not want to start an edit war; perhaps I was being goaded into starting one. I don't know.

At any rate, in closing, I ask the editor, how did you know that the inflation-adjusted budget was "not in source from what I can tell"? Did you consult the magazine? Or did you take your action (edits, reverts, and not notifying or discussing this with anyone) despite being contacted after your second edit and without getting the facts, especially in light of the fact that you state in your User Talk:Betty Logan:Revision History Page that you: "Reverted spurious accusations. I removed the text the other editor objected to. I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim. The issue is resolved as far as I can see." By making this statement, you seem to be admitting that you unilaterally made all edits, reverts, moving of content without any collaboration, and not consulting a verified source, and making three reverts within 24 hours and violating WP:3RR.

However, in the event that you did consult the magazine, how do you justify unilaterally moving the line to the Filming section? Please share your reasoning and the context for the sentence in the magazine with the WP public, so that all will know that the integrity of the article has not been tarnished. I sincerely hope that this was not a case of being a case of original research (which, I remind you, is also against WP policy WP:NOR).

Thank you for the clarification,
````MiztuhX (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's way too long, please keep your comments concise so they're easier to read. Discussions on this talk page should be about the article, if you have an issue with user conduct please take it elsewhere. Indagate (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

He already has: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#Betty_Logan_reported_by_MiztuhX_(Result:_No_violation). If this had been about any editor other than me I would have hat-noted it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Indagate (talk). I definitely agree with you that discussions on this talk page should be about the article. The contention seems to revolve around the source as described in the footnote of the article:

Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

and the following line derived from the magazine:

The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)

Betty Logan (talk) deleted it and moved it from the Box Office section to the Filming section, inserting the fragment (eventually costing $55 million) in the latter section. I would like to know the reason and the context she used to make her unilateral decision for placing the modified line in the Filming section in detriment (IMHO) of the article.

My question is the following: Did Betty Logan consult the magazine before making the four edits (or 3 reverts), as she has stated: "I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim."

I hope that is concise enough, and I welcome your comments and/or suggestions, Indagate (talk). Thanks again, MiztuhX (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait, we're seriously getting our tails in knots over trying to add an inflation cost of the budget in 2023 dollars to this article? Why would we ever do that?! What it cost at the time of production is what should be listed. We don't just magically change or add on to the budget for inflation (which is an ever-changing concept). That is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT at its finest. The fact that Betty was wrongfully accused of violating the revert policy is also absurd. We do not need to consult websites and sources to cite the information they convey. That is not how this works at all. Just because the source may include the inflated budget does not mean it is at all relevant or necessary in this article. Besides, it is 2024, and next year it would be 2025. Would we just update it every time inflation changes per year? No, that is WP:TRIVIAL and not how this encyclopedia works. Let's not get caught up on words of editors and focus on a matter of principle in the article's content, please. Inflated budgets are unnecessary. Also, from the version of the source I'm viewing, that caption in question only states "Christopher Reeve in the 1978 movie Superman; its $55 million budget made it the most expensive movie ever at the time of its release." That inflation estimate seems to be WP:Original research from what I can tell, anyways. The only instance of 2023 in the source is "including the 1978 classic Superman: The Movie, starring the late Christopher Reeve, which marks its 45th anniversary in 2023." There is no mention or instance of $250 million in the source. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk). Nice to have you onboard and thank you for your contribution. The contention isn't really the info in the link; it's what's stated in the magazine, and whether it's right to modify it without first having consulted it. MiztuhX (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We are citing the web version for this instance. Any citation for the physical print copy of a magazine needs to include a page number and, when it is often helpful, the exact quote in the citation. For this instance, we do not need to cite the physical version as it does not add anything new to what is relevant for this article, which is what the film's actual budget is at the time it was made. As I said earlier, we don't include inflated numbers of a film gross, just the same as we don't that for budgets. List of most expensive films does include a list with inflation considered, though that is not needed, nor a requirement, for each individual article as it is trivial and placing larger importance on something that is a frivolous and minute detail. We as an encyclopedia do not need to and are not bound by any rules or laws of needing to contact a source about not using some of their information or when we put it in our own words, which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to function. We got by the sources, though they don't control or dictate what we do. Even if you were to contact the magazine, the chances are highly unlikely that they would respond, let alone care, about whether such a minor detail is included on a Wikipedia article on a subject they have no direct involvement or affiliation with. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk), I'm not really sure what you are talking about, or if we are on the same wavelength, so I'm just going to summarize what I stated before.

As previously mentioned, the source of contention is not the web version but the magazine, the identifying details of which I have stated before and will summarize here again:

Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024

The line in question is: The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)

As an answer to your question, please note that the source includes the exact page numbers where one could find the quote (pp. 34-37) in the magazine; in addition, the magazine also references the context, because remember: there is no text without context.

Finally, and just out of curiosity, do you have access to the magazine? Does Betty Logan (talk) have access to the magazine? You may have a fuller grasp of the content and a scholarly basis for criticism, if you did.

My contention is that if you do not have access to the source, how can you conclude that "it does not add anything new to what is in this article?" How can Betty Logan state: "I stand by the removal of the unsourced claim," if one has not reviewed the source? How can you assume the line is about "budget numbers" or "inflated grosses" when you do not know the context in which the line was written?

Finally, I'm still waiting to know the reasoning behind the line being modified and transferred to the Filming section without the source (magazine) being consulted. Maybe Trailblazer1 has an explanation, since none has been forthcoming from Betty Logan. MiztuhX (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I understand perfectly. We don't need to state what the budget is inflated for 2023 dollars. That is completely unnecessary and no one going here is going to look for what the budget inflated to to some random year. Just because the magazine included that does not mean we have to include it. I don't need nor want to access a print magazine just for an online discussion, though that does not prevent me or others from weighing in and determining a perspective from the facts presented. If you feel the context is important, then share it if it has not been adequately addressed. It is up to you to prove why something you want included is relevant or notable, and everything I've seen points to the inflated gross being irrelevant and oddly random. As I've said and I'll reiterate, we do not need to consult any source we use. I'm not sure where you got that from or why you are pushing for that. I cannot and will not speak on another editor's behalf, I can only do so for myself and I see no need in adding the inflated budget and see no problem with Betty's edits as they are constructive. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Trailblazer101 (talk), and I'm glad you understand perfectly because you had previously expressed confusion about finding page numbers and the exact quote in a citation.

Also, throughout your replies you jump between the pronouns "I" and "We" and it is confusing. When you say "we" do you mean Betty Lang and yourself, or are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, a group of editors, etc.?

Next, your opinion is that you're against using inflated dollars for budgets. Noted.

You said: "You (or "we") don't have to read, understand or see the context for such data in a magazine." Noted.

You said: "This one line (limited facts) does not prevent [you] or others from weighing in and determining a perspective on the [limited] facts presented." Check.

Now, I quote: " If you feel the context is important, then share it if it has not been adequately addressed. [I did] It is up to you to prove why something you want included is relevant or notable,[I did and it was reverted three times] and everything I've seen points to the inflated gross being irrelevant and oddly random [without checking the source and knowing the context].

I quote: "As I've said and I'll reiterate, we do not need to consult any source we use."

Who is "we?" Wikipedia is built on secondary sources.

I quote: "I cannot and will not speak on another editor's behalf, I can only do so for myself..." Who is "we?"

I quote: "[I] see no problem with Betty's edits as they are constructive." No. They have been disruptive.

Basically, I disagree with all your points, but I thank you nonetheless for your input.

Context does matter and it is the responsibility of all WP editors to use it in their editing.

And this quote of yours as you seem to be speaking for Wikipedia:

"We as an encyclopedia do not need to and are not bound by any rules or laws of needing to contact a source about not using some of their information or when we put it in our own words, which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to function. We got by the sources, though they don't control or dictate what we do."

Please provide appropriate WP links to support your statements. Thank you,MiztuhX (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

All this WP:BLUDGEONING isn't going to prove that an inflated budget is relevant and further affirms my belief it shouldn't be included. I see no point in dragging this out as it is such a minute detail that bares no importance whatsoever to this film or article and you have veered this discussion off course to target the editors, rather than WP:CIVILY contributing, which makes me believe you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. You made an edit. You were reverted, rightfully so. You started a discussion. I and others discussed it opposed your preferred changes. Per the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, consensus seems pretty clear not to add in the 2023 inflation of the budget to this article as completely pointless. There is no need to drag this out longer than it needs to be, and I will stop feeding into this now as I see no point in discussing this further. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Trailblazer101 (talk), this is my final reply re: this topic and it is only to correct your misconceptions and to set the record straight because you consistenly failed to answer any of my questions (I still don't know who you were referring to when you referred to yourself as "we").

You are mistaken. Like I mentioned before, I did not make any edits, I never reverted anybody's edits, and I did not engage in any edit wars. Instead @Betty Lang: made two edits. Afterwards, I posted on this editor's Talk Page to express my disagreement. Although the editor was obligated by WP rules to post a notice on my talk page and on the article page (which the editor did not do) after making any kind of edit, I was the one to reach out to this editor first.

I requested the editor revert the edits. Instead, Betty Lang ignored my messages and made two more edits, which, due to having been already notified, can be classified as two more reverts, which bring the total to three reverts, a violation of WP:3RR. And to this day, Betty Lang has yet to voluntarily revert any of the edits or reverts that this editor has made unilaterally; however, that is fine because it is the Wikipedia community who will have the final say in the matter.

And yes, I started a discussion on this article talk page, of which you are but one opinion. Furthermore, I inform you that I will continue to press for inclusion of 2023 comparative budgets (and beyond) because I feel it is an important and relative subject, and I will continue to do my best to collaborate with Wikipedians to improve the Superman (1978) article for all to enjoy.

Happy travails, MiztuhX (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improving Filming Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(I have made this entry its own topic in the hope of using the article page for improving the article in a collaborative manner).MiztuhX (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Indagate (talk), you had previously expressed a concern about discussions being focused on the article. Well, here is the opening sentence of the Filming Section that I would like some help on improving. It reads:

"Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million)."

The problems I have with it are that the subject and predicate don't match up. I mean, the subject talks about principal photography, Pinewood Studios, the Krypton scenes, but it doesn't mention the movie per se and it's important to mention the movie because the other half of the sentence talks about its budget.

The predicate reads: "... budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million)."

What cost $55 million? The photography, studio, Krypton scenes? I know it's implied that the article is talking about the movie, but it's not stated. And also who paid for the budget of the movie? Was it the Salkinds? Warner Bros? A conglomerate of international investors? The syntax doesn't follow; it's just poorly written copy. And the build-up to revealing that the film was the most expensive film ever made up to that point is really anti-climactic and pedestrian. Maybe it might be better suited to be placed elsewhere?

The original sentence was moved from the Box Office section and originally read: The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars).

Notable is that the placename "Hollywood" was deleted. I ask the Wikipedia gods, why was this done? This is crucial data that directly places the budget within the Hollywood sphere; granted, there may be other sources that name other international partners, contributors, studios, etc., and they can all be given credit for the budget if properly cited; however, this line from this magazine conclusively states that the budget of this movie was the largest in Hollywood history, which gives a critical context, as to place and time, and answers the questions as to what, when, and how much. In addition, it gives crucial context for the comparable budget number of $250,000,000 in 2023 dollar figures for budgets of movies made in Hollywood. WP:NOR; it's there in full-living color.

At any rate, let's leave the comparable budget number of $250 million in 2023 dollar figures out of the picture for now and concentrate on the beauty and magnitude of that statement. Then, try to figure out the rest of the riddle: Who? Why? How? Etc. in order to justify the insane $55 million budget and make the copy bright, snappy and informative.

Finally, there are problems with the citation, as it has confused some editors, as it serves as both a link to an official, informational website with some great copy and photographs, but winds up being an ad to purchase the magazine online or in a store.

https://www.life.com/arts-entertainment/superman-the-first-and-foremost-superhero/

Deleting the link would be a disservice for fans, but there are others who will claim that the website has to provide all info that the magazine does in order for it to be credible, which is kind of incredulous because the website states up front that you can buy the magazine online or in a store to read the full article... At any rate, in my opinion, it's not worth the headaches; just drop the link.

I'm open for any takers who want to re-write and/or find a new home for, like baby Kal-El, this forlorn sentence.

Good luck,

MiztuhX (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• For obvious reasons, I am trying to limit my interaction with this editor. This was his edit, and this was mine. As you can see, I accepted his edit for the most part. In the four consecutive edits I made I did take account of the comments he left on my talk page, up to the point I felt they had merit. My edits were entirely consistent with the WP:BRD process, which permits bold edits to be made unilaterally, and also for reverts to be undertaken unilaterally. The administrator who reviewed the report that MiztuhX filed clearly didn't think there was a case for me to answer to. It appears from subsequent discussion, the adjusted figure appears in the hardcopy source, but not the online excerpt he linked to his citation. This seems to be the primary cause of the confusion, but generally I would advise editors to not add links to citations that don't corroborate the claim. Links are supposed to make verification easier, but in this case it created the impression that the claim was unsourced. As I have explained earlier in this discussion, I don't see the point of including an inflation adjusted figure for the budget: the context of the figure (i.e. that it was the largest budget ever at the time) conveys the key information. I also don't accept that it provides us with a comparable modern-day equivalent: $250 million, while still pricey, is not comparable to the $400–500 million budgets of today's most expensive films such as the Avengers and Pirates of the Caribbean films (see List of most expensive films#Most expensive films (adjusted for inflation). As for the relocation of the budget information, then it clearly belongs in the production section in some capacity because that is what it relates to. Some film articles do provide budget information in the box-office section, but that is usually to support sourced commentary about the film's financial performance, which is not the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed – Discuss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 03:11, 31 March 2024, under the heading Revert#1 & Revert#2 and sub-heading Good morning/afternoon/evening, Wikipedians, I made the following announcement:

"I also would like to give notice to the WP community that within 24 hours I would like to place the following template [disputed – discuss] (barring any objections, of course) on the disputed line in the article in order to alert WP readers of the controvery, so as to provide a warning to not rely on this information, while it is under dispute; and to invite them to discuss it on the article Talk Page."

No objections were noted.

At 21:47, 2 April 2024 I placed the disputed-discuss tag on the article.

It was undid at 01:56, 3 April 2024‎ by Betty Logan (talk).

I reverted at 03:26, 3 April 2024‎ with the following edit summary:

"Concerns about the contextual accuracy of line that differs substantially from a previous form." based on the WP Template:Disputed Inline [5] rationale: 1. When there are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims; 2. A question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue; and 3. At least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem.

Also, from WP Accuracy Dispute: [6] "Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing."

I also posted a notice on Betty Logan's talk page to join the discussion.

I invite interested Wikipedians to discuss on this page. Thanks! MiztuhX (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have twice had to revert MiztuhX's inappropriate misuse of the "disputed" tag. The citation is quite clearly used to source the $55 million budget, and this was the source that was added to the article by MiztuhX to source the budget. The guidelines covering the use of this tag can be viewed at Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement and are summarised here:

Several factors can prompt concerns about the accuracy of a statement, including:

• Implausible information, without providing adequate references;
• Information that is particularly difficult to verify;
• Highly detailed information subject to frequent changes, rendering its accuracy variable over time;
• Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned;
• Contributions from users with a history of providing inaccurate information on the subject matter;
• Ambiguously worded statements that allow for multiple interpretations due to grammatical issues or subjective phrasing; or
• Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims.

The tag is used to specifically challenge the interpretation of a claim in respect to the source. The tag does not pertain to where that information should be located in the article, which does not relate to verifiability. Moving the claim from the box-office section to the production section does not impact on the factual accuracy of the claim, regardless of how much MiztuhX might disagree with said re-location of the claim. Trailblazer101 do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of using the tag in this context? I feel like we are moving into tendentious editing territory here. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've seen it before where users in disagreement with the community tend to make long messages and multiple discussions to further infuse their point without reason or compromise, and if I've learned anything from those situations, it is that more often than not, these users cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, and that, for the good of the article, it would be within the best interest not to entertain these distractions much longer. These attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process and misuse tags all because of an inflation of a budget and a randomly-perceived notion the sources need to be contacted for our use on Wikipedia is absurd and veering on rather disruptive and unconstructive territory, especially for the perceived targeting of Betty alone for making proper constructive edits which were found to have no violation of 3RR. The $55 million budget, as it is currently sourced and how it was sourced beforehand, is factually and reliably correct and should never have been in dispute in the first place. The 2023 inflated budget mention, or lack thereof, never should have been added to the article in the first place, hence why it was removed. If anything, if that inflated budget were still in the article, that would be what is disputed and would warrant such a tag, not the other way around.

@MiztuhX, I urge you to cease your disruptive behavior towards editors, especially your signaling out of Betty, and this article and to WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:MOVEON, which I see was suggested to you by an admin on your talk. In spite of this, you still persist in performing the same maneuvers which have led nowhere in convincing the community of why what you want should be included, and have in fact enforced the opposite is true. It isn't worth this much of a fuss over something that has never been a practice on Wikipedia. These attempts are rather frivolous and counterintuitive and counterproductive to what this article's focus is, let alone unnecessary and irrelevant. No one cares about what an amount of money from 1978 was worth in 2023. I have now issued you a formal warning on your talk for your behavior and attitudes here, so I do hope you take some time to take a step back and rethink your actions and process before continuing as you have. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Trailblazer101 (talk), my first response is to assume good faith, a core WP policy.

Second, I have attempted to reason and compromise. I have tried different ways to reach consensus. I've invited other Wikipedians to share their opinion. I've offered to delete the link in the citation that is causing the confusion. I've set up a new section called "Improving Filming Secion" as an outlet for editors to improve the section in dispute.

But you and Betty Logan (talk) have not responded to any of my compromises or answered any of my relevant arguments regarding why I used a dispute-inline tag. If I am wrong, show me how you have tried to compromise.

Instead, both of you have reverted my edits, made veiled threats about edit warring, and engaged in WP:IGNOREYOU: "ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors."

Trailblazer101, you said you warned me. That's fine. I warned you, too. And I said to agree to disagree is fine, too. (and that is the advice another Administrator I spoke to gave me) You two are the ones engaging in edit warring, causing disruptions, not compromising, not moving on, and not improving the article.

Also, Trailblazer101, you reverted my dispue-inline edit twice knowing there was a discussion regarding this very issue on the article talk page. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand on the article page, you chose to be disruptive and edit war. This is also a violation of WP:3RR.

From what I can tell, you both seem obsessed with defending inflated budget numbers, to the detriment of all things, although I have said in the Improving Filming Section, to set that aside and concentrate on confirming the accuracy and context of the source when it was modified and changed from the Box Office Section to the Filming Sections. But you gave no reply, and instead insisted on continue to argue and edit war.

Since that did not appease you. I remind you both about WP:OP: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say."

So, I ask you both to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about ways to compromise and step away a bit from your entrenched positions, and assume good faith. I am not the enemy.

Regards, MiztuhX (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• • I had to revert Betty Lang's reverts and I have advised her to be aware of WP:3RR rule and to stop reverting in order to avoid an WP:ER and keep her comments limited to the article talk page. I have tried to move on by creating The Improving Filming Section and have editors direct their energy to improving the article; however Betty Lang seems insistent on being WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:REHASH previous disputes.

But I will address Betty Lang's concerns again (and I apologize to other Wikipedians who are not interested in these type of discussions):

1. The dispute-inline tage refers to the whole line created by Betty Lang when she unilaterally modified the previous line in the Box Office Section that read: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)," modified it herself without any consultation, and moved it unilaterally to the Filming section as: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point (eventually costing $55 million." This unilateral edit affected tone, accuracy, syntax, etc., many components that don't complement each other, effectively becoming some hybrid creation encompassing different areas and asserting new connections, that have not been properly verified and/or sourced.

Also complicating matters is that the citation has two sources: a link that leads to a website and a magazine.

Each contains different information in different contexts. One cannot just "cherry-pick" the information one desires without noting the context. This is the reason for the dispute-inline tag explained previously. There is a multipicity of interpretations for this quote. By just concentrating on the $55 million budget number, the editor, according to WP Accuray and Disputed Inline is "degrading its reliability as a reference source" and is "misrepresent[ing] reliable sources."

For example, the original quote from the magazine was: ""The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)"

She changed it to just "(eventually costing $55 million)," disregarding all the other information, and substantially changing the meaning and intention of the line as a whole, and instead "cherry-picking" th information that only she deemed important and relative, thus effectively distorting the quoted text and violating Disputed Inline and Disputed Statement sections listed above.

Now, in the website that the footnote links to (which is only the introduction) the article in the magazine, it only superficially glosses over the budget, with such general copy as:

"Christoper Reeve in 1978’s Superman: The Movie, which was the most expensive film ever made ($55 million)" and "Christopher Reeve in the 1978 movie Superman; its $55 million budget made it the most expensive movie ever at the time of its release." (Both are rehashes, and used solely as captions under two photos, and are not part of the body of the article or subject to any serious analysis), which if included and not challenged, will be a grave disservice to the Wikipedia reader who deserves an accurate and true compilation of reputable source material.

I previously stated to delete the link an just leave the magazine as the definitive source due to its more scholarly, substantive content.

MiztuhX (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I will note that, as sourced in the infobox of the article, the budget is listed as $55 million by Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source. I have included that source in with the budget claim and adjusted the wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trailblazer101 (talk),

I don't understand why you would unilaterally add a citation from Box Office Mojo and adjust the wording without discussing it first on the article page. The line was currently being disputed on the article talk page and mentioned in the edit summary history page.

Your revert was at 16:45, 3 April 2024‎ and you posted the notice above at 16:00, 3 April 2024‎ about 45 minutes earlier. Looks like you only gave 45 minutes for editors to comment.

I would have advised you not to revert and just discuss on the article talk page. But, of course, you are free to do whatever you'd like to do.

Your edit summary reads: "Consensus is not by votes, and has been against your changes" while the issue was being discussed. Also, I was unaware that there was a time limit for these type of discussions. Could you please enlighten me about that, too, linking to WP policy?

Furthermore, I was unaware of any such consensus vote having taken place, which, according to you, was the basis for making your revert. Can you please provide a link to the vote?

At any rate, please note that WP:EW states: "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers."

I kindly suggest you review WP:EQ, WP:AGF, WP:POINT; but it is only a suggestion. Thank you, MiztuhX (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am entitled to make a WP:BOLD edit, nothing prohibits that. And Box Office Mojo is reliable, so that should be contested. I never said there were time limits, the warning I issued you was based on how you seemed to have targeted Betty directly for their editing and not for discussing solely about the contents of the article. I merely improved the wording to articulate the sourced content more adequately in the hopes of quelling any concerns, all in the name of WP:Good faith. Something being disputed (even though you misused that template) does not prevent editors from constructively editing the contents in a different way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing WP:BOLD about your edit. Betty Lang has already stated that the box office figure has five other citations already. What you did was act unilaterally WP:POINT. I never targeted anybody. I am only trying to make the article better. You say that you "improved" the wording (that's yet to be determined); however, the key here is that you did not discuss this with anybody, especially since you knew the line was being disputed, however right or justified you felt. I suggest you're letting your feelings get the better of you.

Like I mentioned before and restate, per WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say."

Please... review the above WP links I shared with you above. Take a break. Rest easy. I won't revert your revert, or escalate this anymore. Regards, MiztuhX (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I assure you that I use logic above all else with all of my contributions and set my personal feelings aside, and that is no different here. I am not disrupting the article or acting on anyone else's behalf. The $55 million budget is reliably sourced, and I ensured the BOM source was used consistently. This figure really shouldn't be an issue here, nor should the wording as it currently stands is the most accurate per the sources cited. The inflated budget was contested by multiple editors, so that is not being included unless further points convince editors otherwise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The subject of the non-reliability of the $55 million-dollar budget is legendary. Here is an article that deals with it: https://www.slashfilm.com/1161245/the-budget-for-richard-donners-superman-was-a-constant-point-of-contention/

Furthermore, In a 2016 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Donner revealed that the Salkinds stonewalled him every step of the way:

"They never ever told me what the budget was. I had no idea what I was spending. I was making a movie and they wouldn't tell me the budget. So there was no way I knew what I was spending. Sometimes I'd authorize something and nothing would be there; they would just arbitrarily cancel it. They didn't want anyone to know where that money went, I guess."

So, I would consider the $55 million dollar with a grain of salt.

In addition, Box Office Mojo, for what it's worth, is not listed at WP:RSP and is not considered a reliable/perennial source. It is owned by IMDb which is listed as being "Generally Unreliable"; I don't know if it's a reflection of Box Office Mojo, but those are "the facts." MiztuhX (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Captions do not have to be sourced if all they do is reiterate sourced commentary. There are now five sources in the article covering the claim that the film cost $55 million to make, and that it was the most expensive film up to that point. If you have sources that contradict that claim in any capacity, then bring them to the discussion and permit us to review them. At the moment I do not see anything contrary to that claim, and therefore there is no basis for "disputing" the claim. You have not even said why you dispute it. So far, all you have objected to is the relocation of the claim to the production section and the removal of the adjusted figure. You are entitled to challenge those edits, but they do not amount to a challenge of the veracity of the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your reasoning, but I’ll agree to your terms as a way to extend an olive branch. Let’s review how the budget number is mentioned in each source:

1). Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979. Vol. 9 of History of the American Cinema, Richard Koszarski. Scribner. p. 58. “ (Acceptable).

2). Superman: The Movie (1978) – Articles". Turner Classic Movies. Archived from the original on July 24, 2019. Retrieved April 26, 2012. (Acceptable.)

3). Box Office Mojo - Borderline/ Not a reliable source.

4). Duffell, Peter (2010). Playing Piano in a Brothel: Memoirs of a Film Director. BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-59393-612-9 (No page number.. Rejected)

5). Jerome, Richard (2023). "Chapter 2: Big-Screen Superhero". Life: Superman, The Comics, The Films, The Cape. New York, NY: Dotdash Meredith Premium Publishing. pp. 34–37. Retrieved March 12, 2024. (Rejected - no access to magazine)

6). https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/78146/16-super-facts-about-superman "14. Donner and the Salkinds constantly fought over Superman's budget: "As production on both films continued, tension developed between Donner, the Salkinds, and producer Pierre Spengler. Donner was attempting an unprecedented comic book movie feat, and according to him, the producers constantly urged him to spend less while never actually telling him what he was allowed to spend. The Salkinds always claimed the film was over schedule and over budget, while Donner claims that he never actually had a schedule or a budget.

“They’d say, ‘You can’t do this,’ but I would have no alternative and they wouldn’t show me the budget. They never ever told me what the budget was. I had no idea what I was spending. I was making a movie and they wouldn’t tell me the budget,” Donner said. “So there was no way I knew what I was spending. Sometimes I’d authorize something and nothing would be there; they would just arbitrarily cancel it. They didn’t want anyone to know where that money went, I guess.”

7). From the New York Times: "THE LIFE AND EXCEEDINGLY HARD TIMES OF SUPERMAN:" "According to Mr. Salkind, the first two Superman movies have cost $109 million. He has, at various other times, estimated the cost as $120 million or $140 million. This is the catastrophe of the situation, said Mr. Salkind, that movies that made so much money are still in the red." https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/movies/the-life-and-exceedingly-hard-times-of-superman.html

8.) Superheroes Every Day: Superman 1.3: Brando and the Money https://superheroeseveryday.com/2021/09/08/superman-1-3/ : "The two Superman films, to be lensed simultaneously, will ring up a super budget of $25-30,000,000. Of that figure, $2,700,000, goes to Marlon Brando who plays papa to “Superman”. (Variety, Dec 27, 1976)" and "In the end, of course, nobody knows how much Brando actually received, because the Salkinds never produced anything like a credible accounting of how much money they spent on the picture. And if nobody knew how much they spent, then they couldn’t calculate how much was profit, so everybody who had a percentage of the movie had to take the Salkinds to court to get anything out of them. Ultimately, Brando’s lawyers and the Salkinds’ lawyers negotiated a settlement of some unknown amount, and then the Salkinds cut Brando’s character out of Superman II so they didn’t have to pay him the money that they owed him for that picture, either."

I want to dispute the $58 million budget because it is simply not accurate. And since you reverted my edits, I ask you to please re-revert them, and add the dispute-in line tag so we can discuss this rationally, announce to other readers to come to article talk page to do the same, and hopefully assist to write a better article. Much thanks, MiztuhX (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all the figure in the article is $55 million, not $58 million. Secondly, if you do not believe that the $55 million budget is accurate why did you make this edit? Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was accurate withib that context; but now I see the situation was much more complicated on many different levels, which the article doesn't address. MiztuhX (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a wider conflict between the claim in the article and the figures above. The $25–30 million figure comes from 1976 before the film started shooting. This is very likely what the budget started out at, because nobody set out to spend $100 million on making a film in the 1970s. The Salkinds ran out of money during production and had to stall Superman 2, and I don't see the higher figures contradicting that. I don't object to the lower figures being in the article but they were invariably not the final cost of the film. The Salkind estimates are more interesting: $109 million is consistent with $55 million for the first film, and the reported $54 million for the second one. I am not aware of the higher figures and what they relate to. Moreover, these relate to the combined cost of both films, and it is not possible to derive the individual budgets from them. I have no objections to including these other figures in the article, but so far you have not presented any alternative figures for the budget of this film. Neither do I see why having this information in the production section (where budgets are normally covered) rather than the box-office section creates a factual conflict. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that I'm providing sources to advocate for the placement of the dispute-inline tag in the Filming section to alert other editors about the current discussion. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy editing on WP, but it would be helpful if you replace the dispute-inline tag since it's a lot of work for one editor to review books and on-line articles looking for arcane budget numbers from a movie that premiered 46 years ago! Also, I don't care about putting the line back in the Box Office section; leaving it where it is is fine by me for the moment.

Your most salient point (imho) is: "Moreover, these relate to the combined cost of both films, and it is not possible to derive the individual budgets from them." Let's remember that Superman - The Movie was budgeted for the filming of two movies (it states so in the intro to the article: "It was decided to film both Superman and its sequel Superman II (1980) simultaneously...), which is one reason why it was presented as having the highest budget up to that point in Hollywood history. So, what you are asking for (getting an individualized budget for either movie may not be possible, especially in light of Richard Donner's claim that the Salkinds never told him what the budget was. But if we can find it, I am open to including it.

At any rate, "The Hollywood Reporter," which according to WP:RSP, has "the highest rating of being generally reliable in its area of expertise [and] [t]here is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures. in its review of Superman dated 10 Dec 1978 stated:

"The cost of the production, rumored to be over $40 million for the two films, is fully evident on the screen."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/superman-1978-review-1235059378/

Furthermore, in the New York Times article date 14 June 1981 (linked above), even Ilya Salkind gives contradicting budget numbers: "According to Mr. Salkind, the first two Superman movies have cost $109 million. He has, at various other times, estimated the cost as $120 million or $140 million. This is the catastrophe of the situation, said Mr. Salkind, that movies that made so much money are still in the red.

And the cherry on the cake (from the same NY Times article): "Mr. Salkind's figures have been challenged in suits filed by Marlon Brando, Mario Puzo, and Richard Donner. In part, these suits contend that Ilya Salkind and his father, Alexander, a movie promoter and producer, fraudulently schemed to deprive them of their share of the revenues. In addition, Los Angeles theater chain owner William Forman filed civil lawsuits alleging that more than $20 million was misappropriated from him by Alexander Salkind to make a series of movies and to buy the movie rights to Superman. Eventually Alexander Salkind settled with Mr. Forman; Mr. Salkind told a reporter the settlement was $23.4 million."

I am not a lawyer nor an acccountant, and I don't know what to make of this mess, but if anybody wants to know more about these legal shenanigans, here is a link to Man of Steal: https://superheroeseveryday.com/2022/01/18/superman-1-97/ Extra points if you can figure out how it relates to the budget of Superman, but I think it's something akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

At any rate, due to the wide number of sources with divergent budget numbers, especially after the premiere of the movie, it calls into question the legitimacy and/or accuracy of the $55 million budget number and also justifies the replacement of the dispute-inline tag, as I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and more boots need to be on the ground to research this. But if you have any claims or sources to the contrary, please send them my way as I am open to looking at them. But as you can see, it's a legal morass. Thank you, MiztuhX (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus to tag the claim, and there won't be one because the tag is not applicable. The claim matches the source, and the source is reliable. The dispute isn't about the figure, it is about me removing the adjusted figure and relocating the claim to the production section. That is what you objected to, and that is why you initiated this discussion. You added the figure and source to the article, and my edit did not impact on those two aspects, so it is disingenuous of you to suggest I am also imposing the $55 million figure on the article. If you have found alternative figures in other reliable sources, then the appropriate course of action is to incorporate them into the article, rather than tagging legitimately sourced claims. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – As an outside observer with no skin in the game, let me first start out by saying to MiztuhX, you really need to avoid writing all one- and two-sentence paragraphs in your replies, to the point where you end up with 5, sometimes even 10, paragraphs with a ton of whitespace in-between. This turns each response into a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Although it is sometimes necessary to be thorough, this can't happen with every reply if you expect to invite outside participation; others are going to take one look and shy away. Your last reply is an improvement, although still very long in the tooth. Moving on...
  Going by Betty's last response, the original objection had to do with placement of the claim and removal of the adjusted figure. Has the focus now shifted elsewhere, and has that original issue been resolved? Can we at least clear that up before moving on? I agree with placing the widely-accepted production cost in the Production section of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your suggestion. I'll type shorter responses! And you're right about the original issue (I hope; correct me if I'm wrong), and I've mentioned I have no problem that the $55 million budget be placed in the Production (Filming) section. The issue was Betty Lang's deletion of the original line, except for the budget, and the WP:VERIFICATION problems it created. My original line read: "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million (over $250 million in 2023 dollars)." It now reads: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, which was $55 million," with three citations.

None of the citations mention anything about the subject, and none place the budget in context as written by Betty Lang and later Trailblazer101. Plus, the book "Playing Piano in a Brothel," another citation, doesn't have a page number. The last citation, Box Office Mojo, was just added the other day by Trailblazer101. As the editor who made the edit, Betty Lang bears the WP:BURDEN to WP:PROVEIT: " All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The source I used covered my whole line. Anyway, long story short, the sources don't jibe with her new edit. She claims it's just related to the budget number; but it's so much more; it's about the contextual prose and whether the sources support this whole new statement she created. MiztuhX (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It does appear that the conflict is a bit more trivial than it first appeared. The article has essentially been restored to the WP:STATUSQUO version as it existed prior to any recent edits to that section, with the exception of the BOM citation and the phrase: "which was $55 million". Your contention is that the first half of the sentence, which covers principal photography, is not supported by the cited sources, correct? If so, we probably should break these statements apart and slap a {{citation needed}} tag where appropriate instead of outright removal. Then the difference in wording – yours vs theirs – becomes a trivial matter as long as we agree on the core aspect that $55 million is a verifiable claim.

So in a nutshell, it could look something like this: "Principal photography began on March 28, 1977, at Pinewood Studios for the Krypton scenes. The film was budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, which was $55 million." Of course, the second sentence would be followed by agreed upon citations and could still be modified further if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed another instance of an inflated figure was also added earlier, this one for a 2016 estimate. As such, I have also removed that from the Box office section as that is, again, WP:TRIVIAL and not relevant to what the film grossed at the time of release. As for the wording, anyone is also welcome to search for any reliable sources that verify the information and can add them into the article, rather than adding pesky tags without actually doing the work to cite the claims in question. We could also adjust the budget wording to, say: "The film was budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point, and its final budget was reported to be $55 million." I think that may quell some concerns on that front. Though, please, find and add more sources to verify the information in the article as opposed to removing it or just leaving a tag behind. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't prefer to leave tags myself, but I always advise other editors that it's best to leave one as opposed to outright removal. It's also helpful to drop a note on the article talk page as well. This gives editors that frequent the article time to fix if you aren't able (or willing) to locate the proper sourcing. It also has the added bonus that someone else passing by that just happened to stumble across the article may be able to fix it as well. Tags don't always burden the regulars. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, "things just got out of hand" to quote Doctor Strange, because of this now: [7] I don't think reporting Betty and I for perceived edit warring is a constructive way to handle these situations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

By March 28, 1977, I do not think the producers had an idea that the budget would balloon to $55 million. 14 months later, by May 26, 1978 the film had a budget in the lower range between $32 and $37 million and an upper range of $40-$45 million dollars, according to producer Alexander Salkind. So, it's premature to be talking about the most expensive budget in history at this juncture. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/05/26/archives/at-the-movies-costs-of-making-superman-go-up-up-and-away.html MiztuhX (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, further modification can still happen to the second sentence. If we want to remove "budgeted" and instead go with something closer to the language you proposed, "The film required the largest budget ever in Hollywood history up to that point at $55 million", that's a relatively small change that I would still deem trivial. Although there's a subtle difference, it's not vastly different than the language that exists now. The overall point though is that the first sentence shouldn't have been removed without giving editors time to find a necessary source, if that's part of what you're contesting here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What he is contesting keeps changing, which makes the dispute very difficult to resolve. I'm not sure I even know what the dispute is, anymore. This discussion is impenetrable for a third-party editor coming in cold. IMO the discussion needs to be closed, and MiztuhX should initiate separate discussions for each issue he still seeks to challenge. The issue of the tag should be dropped as well, because we have spent more time discussing the tag than the underlying issue. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. Yes, it doesn't appear there are any major disputes left to discuss. It seems to be down to a very minor change with the way the budget is introduced, which I'm happy to discuss further if the OP really feels the need to continue. GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.