Talk:The Batman (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crticism

User:Adamstom.97 maybe you should actually read the reviews before claiming what I added as criticisms by some isn't cited by the reviews? You removed my addition of reviewers' criticism of tone and characters in the lead.

The "Reception" section mentions this critcism and you can also look at the sources.

Tone:-

• The Hollywood Reporter - Reeves’ film hammers home the realization that somewhere along the line, someone — probably Christopher Nolan — decided that Batman movies should no longer be fun.
• The Washington Post in its headline itself calls it "joyless" and later says it is "yet another lugubrious, laboriously grim slog masquerading as a fun comic book movie."
• The New York Times - "Unfortunately Reeves — best known for “Cloverfield” and smart adaptations of the “Planet of the Apes” movies — has fully bought into the darker-equals-deeper myth, delivering a film that’s as ponderous as it is convoluted and, ultimately, devoid of meaningful stakes."

Character development:-

• The New Yorker is specifically mentioned to criticize them in "Reception"
• Sight and Sound criticized the secondary characters
• The Washington Post mocks the characters - "It’s Halloween in Gotham, and the citizens of a dejected city look like “Joker” extras who were too scary to make the final cut;" or "Pattinson’s performance evokes not just Eastwood but Edward Scissorhands, Kurt Cobain and, in a weird way, Crispin Glover. Pale and wraithlike, Pattinson’s bummer of a Batman slugs and slashes his way through his crime-fighting duties, at one point introducing himself as Vengeance." and "In Reeves’s murky, dystopian vision, Batman’s evolution from pariah to messiah isn’t a triumph so much as a grunge-worthy shrug. He may be fueled by newfound righteousness, but “The Batman” is still kind of a drag."

It seems to me you have instinctively reverted without checking the reviews. Nor it is anyone's burden to do so because you can't bother to check them yourself. Please dispute when you have at least checked about something you are reverting. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is going to be in the lead then it needs to be in the article. We can't just include stuff in the lead because you read it somewhere else. We only have two reviews in this article that criticise the characters and only one of those (Sight and Sound) actually criticises the character development. The three examples you have given of the "tone" being criticized are much more nuanced than that, and I could cherry pick lines from the positive reviews we have there that praise the "tone" so including it in the lead like you have does not give an accurate summary of the reviews. So I haven't "instinctively reverted" anything, I checked what was in the reception section and reverted you because your new summary did not match. If you want to include tone and character development in the lead then you will need to expand the reception section with more reviews that criticise those things, but you need to be careful that you are not putting WP:UNDUE weight on negative revies since we know that reviews were much more positive than that in general per the aggregate data in the reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Another thing, by my count there are only 14 reviews in the section out of the 400+ on RT. If you really want to make a strong case for updating the summary in the lead you should add way more reviews to the section and organise them into consistent positives and negatives with less focus on quotes. If you do that accurately, i.e. by giving due weight to each issue and not skewing it based on your own bias, then it should be pretty clear what the lead needs to be updated as. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Adamstom you're assuming bad faith by accusing me of bias. All I did was try to add more than one criticism in the lede so it doesn't feel that there was no other criticism shared by critics. Also how do you expect me to read all reviews? No one can. I just summarized what was said in the article. Also you're not really even saying what I added is false, whether you claim it's cherrypicked it is there. I'm sorry but you're clearly trying to get into a fight here. I've reverted you. Please hold a discussion first over what your issues are and don't impose what you want. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Battinson (Robert Pattinson's Batman) article

When some of you are gonna make an article about this Batman of Robert Pattinson, just like Ben Affleck's one? LRP19PT (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably when there's more than just one movie. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft available at Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman film series), can edit it there until ready for mainspace which may be when the character appears again as Don mentioned Indagate (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There's not any reason to. As far as I'm concerned, he's not a distinct version of the character and he's only been in one movie so there's no need to make a distinct article. (I'm also going to oppose efforts to create a standalone article, since it'll just be a WP:FORK of existing articles that's only separated by ridiculous WP:FANCRUFT plot summary.) JOEBRO64 14:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

An article should really only be made if he appears in more movies, as in, once he appears in his own trilogy or at least 4 movies, I think that's the general consensus on these kind of articles. Outside of that, however, most of the characterization info is already present in the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I respect, but your point of view is just stupid and ignorant! Imagine if he just appears in one movie! So what, we have to wait 5-10 years for an article? I don't agree sorry! You guys just wanna make your laws it's so stupid! We could create an article, and if there's another 1 or 2 movies of him we could just write more things of those films and the character in the article! Danny DeVito got his own Penguin article, and even Michelle Pfeiffer her own Catwoman article, and by the way as i know they got their articles, and they were on just one single film, so your point of view is stupid! LRP19PT (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks. Whether those articles should exist or not is irrelevant, the fact is that anything you could say about the new Batman in a standalone article applies to this film and the only reason we would create that separate article before there were multiple appearances by the character is if we decided that this article was too big and needed to be split off. That discussion has not taken place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bro chill, where did i insult someone, i said your idea is stupid, i just said it's ignorant, where that's attacking and insulting bro, CHILL OUT, calm down! I just said my freakin' opinion, and i just disagree with you, saying that your ideas are stupid or ignorant it's not personal attacking, or even less insulting... Please understand the truth and what i'm saying, read this message, before saying ignorant crap! Don't be ignorant, please (again it's not an insult, and it's not my point) LRP19PT (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You think calling someone’s ideas stupid and ignorant is not a personal attack? You really need to understand the nature of collaboration and civility if you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Most editors were against the creation of a Battinson article in this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rcarter555 No i think it's not a personal attack, i call it as an "opinion" of mine. Calling you stupid it's a personal attack yes, but saying an idea is stupid and ignorant is not sorry! I'm not attacking that's not my intention, it's just my opinion, you just need to respect, like i do, that's all! Now, if you are offended then you need to change that, because i'm not offending that's really not my intention, so hope you understand my point of view LRP19PT (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL. There are ways to express your opinion without being juvenile and insulting. If you don’t believe that calling someone’s idea (no matter if you agree with it or not) stupid and ignorant, then you really should not be conversing in a public forum. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, i'm not insulting, it's not an insult! By know stop to reply to my messages, i will not read your thing! I don't wanna talk about this anymore! I have my opinion, you have yours, so now stop... LRP19PT (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll list some examples of where you're being WP:UNCIVIL: I respect, but your point of view is just stupid and ignorant!, You guys just wanna make your laws it's so stupid!, Please understand the truth and what i'm saying, read this message, before saying ignorant crap!. Even if you genuinely weren't trying to insult anyone, other editors' replies make it clear they felt insulted by your comments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I will not lose my time with wikipedian people! Like i said, i insulted anyone, if they're offended it's their problem! LRP19PT (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

So you reply to an accusation of being insulting by insulting those who made the accusation? Rcarter555 (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@LRP19PT Editors have already explained to you why an article for Battinson won't be created kindly, your argument is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter if your intention was to not insult them, you are being rude to other editors by calling their ideas "stupid" and calling them "ignorant", and your insistence upon not insulting anyone just simply comes off as WP:BAIT. Now that you have your answer, you should probably apologize for your comments. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Could this link be included as part of the budget references?

I've just found an estimated confirmation that solidifies the fact that The Batman was indeed made with $200 million. It's from Huffington Post (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-batman-2-officially-confirmed_n_62698273e4b068da70034e5a), though this may also be used as a reference for descriptions of a sequel. GreenGrenier (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, a consensus has already been made regarding the budget. The sources in the infobox only use one of out the other various sources cited within the article that proves it has a 200M budget. Enough sources have been cited for the sequel also. 72.202.142.244 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Will Pattinson return as Bruce Wayne / Batman ?

According to several articles between Jan. 1, 3022, and mid April 2022, the consensus was "no."

Then, articles start appearing with a "qualified" 'yes.' Those articles state that he is "set" to return, but there has been no word from Pattinson himself.

As such, I think any mention of him returning for sequels should not be included.

Just a thought. 2600:8800:204:C400:6529:406F:C73A:507 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

He was officially confirmed to be returning by Reeves and the studio, that is why it is included in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The Batman and noir

@TheJoebro64: Not only did you remove my inclusion of "neo-noir" in the lead, you removed my whole sub-section about noir, all without an explanation. I feel you're made an egregious error. As for the former, another editor told me neo noir didn't belong in the short description, which was tacit approval to put it elsewhere in the lead. As for the latter, are you kidding? To not recognize the noir in The Batman is like ignoring the noir in Blade Runner, both of which are well-documented. I had plenty of sources with nine foot-notes, and I could have had a lot more. When I searched on "The Batman-Film Noir" I got about twenty hits, and that doesn't mean noir was simply mentioned in the articles, it was in the titles. Noir is an essential part of this movie, the main part of the visuals, and perhaps thematically. Please explain yourself. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm... really struggling to see what any of what you added actually contributes to the article. A section compiling every time someone called it neo-noir and adding a genre that's not the primary genre? That's nothing of significance. Maybe a sentence in the reception section specifying that many critics described the film as neo-noir, sure, but your additions fell far under WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. JOEBRO64 15:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph within the Critical response section would suffice, with not as many full quotes as that section had. —El Millo (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock the article?

Why is the article still blocked? 151.34.110.78 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not locked. It's semi-protected (you have to have an account that has 4+ edits and is 10+ days old). — SirDot (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

add name to infobox: Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

| name = The Batman Inkwiwtba (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Reverted – Handled automatically by the infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the genre listed for The Batman (2022 film) page

• The listed genre of the film, rather than simply being "superhero", should read "epic neo-noir superhero crime thriller":
• The aforementioned genre labels are more descriptive of the film's style and influences than 'superhero'. Many films on this site are given several genre labels by editors in an effort to be descriptive, but nearly all superhero films with pages on the site are given only that single genre label and nothing more, even when many superhero films employ other genre influences such as comedy, horror, drama, thriller, crime, fantasy, etc. 'Superhero' does encompass numerous genre influences and tropes in and of itself, but there is far too much variation within the genre to relegate every film (or other media) based on superhero properties to the exact same single genre label. The genre influences listed above for The Batman are all unambiguously present in the film's content and style. Several articles reviewing the film all it an epic film, noir film, or both.:
• :

Benthetower (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We only include the primary genre in the lead, per WP:FILMGENRE. The other details are discussed in more appropriate ways. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What are these "more appropriate ways"? Like I said, most films have a descriptive genre label that typically includes adjectives and modifiers alongside its primary genre. For example, the film "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind" has the listed genre of "romantic science fiction drama film". This is because it is descriptive and tells the reader what type of movie it is. If only the "primary genre" were listed it would just say romance, science fiction, or drama but this would not be as useful to the reader.

Everyone knows that The Batman is a superhero movie. Every single film adaptation of the Batman license is -- by default -- a superhero story given that it includes the character and his tropes. Therefore, putting superhero in its genre label on its own is unnecessary. But furthermore, it shows inconsistency in the site, as every single film's page is descriptive except for ones based on Marvel or DC characters. 66.26.167.152 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"furthermore, it shows inconsistency in the site" The inconsistency lies with the other films that mash up a string of genres. Doing this goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style, specifically MOS:FILMGENRE. In addition, it makes poor grammatical sense. At the very least, you would need commas to separate the multiple adjectives (though it would still be an jumbled mess). --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Despite what that policy might say, it does seem to be standard practice to list as many modifiers are needed (within reason, and avoiding redundancy) to accurately describe a film's genre. Benthetower (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually a guideline, and most editors aren't even aware or they simply ignore it. High-traffic film articles are more likely to be in sync with the guideline, because they are watched by more experienced editors. A majority of film articles out there are low-traffic and contain a lot more junk. That's just how it is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "epic" applies here. Seems like a misuse of the term in a similar way as how "iconic" is frequently misused these days. — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It might be redundant to list neo-noir alongside crime thriller. Most neo-noir films are crime films. The genre of film noir derived most of its plots from crime fiction. Dimadick (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is valid. The genre should still read "epic neo-noir superhero film". The noir influences are far too strong to do otherwise.  66.26.167.152 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just "superhero film" is sufficient. It is original research to call this film a "epic neo-noir superhero crime thriller". Nobody in the real world has ever called it that. Editors do not get to mash up genres on their own. If that original research was allowed, then what actual limit could be placed? Why not call it an "epic neo-noir superhero crime action drama thriller", so we make sure action and drama are represented too? The first sentence is nothing like a database that lists all the related genres (and we avoid that in the infobox for similar reasons). The proper approach is to follow what reliable sources call the film. We have room in the rest of the lead section to show the film's setting and tone and themes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, no one says "oh its an epic neo-noir [etc. etc.]. However, I have provided multiple sources calling it either an epic, a noir film, a crime thriller, or some combination of these. Original research or not, it is not simply me making those things up -- other people have recognized and used those labels.

Similarly, if someone in the "real world" were to ask the genre of "The Prestige", they would indeed not say "oh its this awesome science fantasy psychological thriller." Alas, the film's genre on Wikipedia reads "science fantasy psychological thriller".

Why wouldn't we say drama or action? Because those are implied with "superhero" as most superhero stories contain action and drama elements. "Crime thriller" however, is not implied (although, as another user has pointed out, crime thriller is redundant if neo-noir is listed). Benthetower (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, as I have explained in a different reply below, original research has been used to inform a film's genre on it's Wikipedia page before. Is the line drawn exclusively for superhero films? Benthetower (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Typically we pull genres from these sites: AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. It looks like AllMovie is the only one that has it so far, see this link. Because there are so many level 1 genres listed, we look to the sub-genres, which are "Action Thriller" and "Superhero". Since a superhero film encompasses action, there's really no need to mash up "superhero action thriller film" in the lead. Just say "superhero film". Simple and clean. We want to avoid putting too many genres together, because doing so creates a grammatical issue with improper adjectives and missing commas. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  It seems that AFI has not been exclusively consulted where appropriate. For example, the film Sunset Boulevard on the AFI website is a "drama" and its sub-genre is "show business". However, the Wikipedia page reads "black comedy film noir". There needs to be consistency. If my original research here (which has plenty of articles supporting my claim about The Batman's genre) is not worthwhile to make that change, then other films should not have fabricated genres based on original research.

  AllMovie (just like AllMusic, with which I am more familiar) is not an accredited website in any way, shape or form, and should not be considered an end-all-be-all in regards to genre labeling. It should not take precedence over any of the sources I have initially listed in regards to sources for the film's genre. Benthetower (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with GoneIn60 that genres should be pulled from the websites they mentioned. There is no guideline saying to use these websites, though it could be a good start. At the end of the day, it is about WP:DUE weight from reliable sources writing about the film. Like at the time of a film's release, reviews and other coverage about a film need to describe a film to people who don't know anything or much about it. Sometimes when there is disagreement about the primary genre or sub-genre to use in the first sentence, it helps to do a review of all the different sources to see how they've classified the film. My feeling, though, is that for films starring superheroes, it's predominantly going to be a superhero film first and foremost. It does not mean that other genres or sub-genres are invalid, just that "superhero film" would have the most due weight, and the other items can be spread out in the lead section or article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, there's no guideline that tells us to use those, and I doubt we really disagree. I should clarify that those sites are not the arbiters of genre classification. They are simply a good starting point in absence of better sources, and they can also assist when reputable sources seem to be at odds. We had an issue with the Shrek franchise years ago, discussed at WT:FILM, which was ultimately settled by comparing these three sources and using the cross-section of genres mentioned by all three. The same method was also used to assess the Jurassic Park franchise in this discussion. So while not the end-all-be-all, it is one acceptable way to move the discussion forward. If someone has a better source or more convincing argument to make during discussion, then those would trump the simple AFI/BFI/AllMovie comparison. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  While what you are saying is generally true for a majority of the genre (see: the Spider-Man films, The Avengers, most Superman films, most Batman films, most X-Men films, etc.) it is not always the case and is not really the case here. "Superhero" as I've said is a genre, but there is a huge amount of variation in how superhero stories are told. I would make the argument that The Batman is just as much a noir film as a superhero film, if not more. It does have the standard Batman tropes of him fighting crime, a love interest, a villain out to get him, etc., but it leans MUCH heavier into the crime drama, psychological thriller, and hardboiled detective elements than any previous adaptations of the character on film and more so than any typical superhero movie would (see: the interweaving and complex organized crime subplots; the depiction of the Riddler; the scenes with Gordon and Batman solving riddles and discussing their investigation). It is also differentiated from the standard structure that most superhero movies have on account of its sprawling, polycentric-act plot structure, length, and the large-scale and spectacle of its production values and sets. This is why it has been recognized as an "epic" by numerous sources I've provided.

  At present, Avengers: Endgame, Deadpool, Logan, and this film all have exactly the same genre label on this site. If they were not films based on Marvel and DC properties this would certainly not be the case and this is obvious from visiting many films' pages on this site.

  I'm making this argument not just out of the want for consistency on this site, but because I think superhero films should be acknowledged for branching out into other realms of cinema, removed from the rote model of Marvel and DC film production that was held in the industry for so long. Benthetower (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  "...then other films should not have fabricated genres based on original research" No disagreement here. I think we'd all agree that no film should be described with fabricated genres. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was saying "fabricated" in a rhetorical sense. Me calling The Batman "neo-noir" is very much not fabricated; I have provided no less than 5 sources which call it a noir film, and 6 which call it an epic -- all of my sources are articles about the film and its content. On the other hand, you have referred me to three databases, two of which do not even have the film and the other being completely useless for describing the film. You simply lack a cogent argument that my research here is not valid. I'm not sure what your definition of "high-traffic film" is, because nearly every single note-worthy film with a Wikipedia page has modifiers to its primary genre where appropriate and based on entirely valid research (I would provide at least 10 examples, but you would say those films are low-traffic and contain junk from less experienced editors). So it seems you draw the line strictly for superhero films/big-budget blockbusters. I am here to make sure that superhero films are not being entirely pigeonholed within the exact same genre descriptor, starting with this film.

  It appears that I have made the "more convincing argument" which trumps the AFI/BFI/AllMovie comparison, as those websites are plainly not useful here. Benthetower (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:FILMGENRE states that Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources, so you must prove that the film is referred to by that those genres as much as it's referred to as a superhero film. Some reliable sources isn't enough and your interpretation on how much this film leans into other genres certainly won't be enough. —El Millo (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's no reason to try to pick apart the general advice I've given. It will apply differently to various situations, so let's use a little common sense. I've already stated that AFI, BFI, and AllMovie are not the ultimate authority on genre classification, and obviously they're not going to be all that helpful for newer films that are not yet listed.

  It could be that you're on the right track with "noir" being a primary classification, but I have yet to do that assessment for myself. Just need to keep in mind that there are hundreds if not thousands of sources covering this particular film. We'd need to gauge how significant the "noir" classification really is in relation to "superhero". In a handful of sources I looked at, they describe the noir elements of course, but they begin by describing it as a superhero film. The question is do we need to cram noir into the opening sentence, or would it be acceptable (if not preferable) to cover the noir aspect in more detail later on? I think we all agree it needs coverage, but so far we seem to disagree on how to present that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  The issue here seems to be that Benthetower has seen other film articles with more descriptive genres in the intro and wants these films to match, but as has been pointed out by several editors already those films do not follow the established guideline and copying them just for the sake of consistency is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. We should be following good practice and good writing here and just using the main genre. Readers are going to be served much better by learning that this is a superhero movie that evokes noir and crime film elements through its production than by being told it is an "epic neo-noir superhero crime thriller" which is silly, WP:UNDUE, grammatically dubious, unwelcoming for an opening sentence, and just not very informative about the film itself. The suggestion that it is a problem for Endgame, Deadpool, Logan, and The Batman to all be listed just as superhero films completely ignores the fact that most people do just see them as "superhero movies", even though a small group of people care more about the nuances of each film. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Potential name for the franchise

"BatVerse"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is worth keeping note of, though we should obviously wait until it is used in a more official capacity than from interviews. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Accolades page

Do you think we should have a separate page for The Batman's accolades? Just a thought DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Poster

Is there a specific reason the article uses this pretty terrible poster instead of something like this which appears to be part of the same batch since they both say "out March 4"? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Talk:The Batman (film)/Archive 1#New poster, the fact that the poster says "Only in cinemas" instead of "Only in theaters" indicates it's an international poster, so that's why the current poster is in place instead. If you can find a version of that poster with the release date and saying "theaters" instead of "cinemas", I guess the discussion would be settled. —El Millo (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Found one. —El Millo (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that poster was originally kept because it also had a billing block, apart from the theaters/cinemas difference. But someone reverted it to the poster without a billing block ([1]), saying: looks like the official version doesn't include the billing block. A billing block is also not needed since the image is low res, both of which seem like invalid arguments, as the posters included in IMP Awards aren't the only official ones, and any poster is official if it was made by the film's distributor. Regarding the low-res argument, the billing block is still needed if it exists, and it could be viewed in the "Source" link to the high-res image. —El Millo (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, the choices are between the current poster, with release date, American English, and billing block, and the other poster, with release date, American English, but no billing block. —El Millo (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It was decided in that discussion to use this one from the film's website, but then shortly after the film came out a user (now blocked as a sock) changed it to the current version. I said back then that I wasn't convinced that it was the "main" poster, but no one else chimed in, so the poster remained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that poster is that it doesn't have the release date, so it isn't a theatrical release poster. I've never seen the "Now playing" posters used. This one I'd found would be the better option, if we prefer that one without a billing block to the current one with billing block. —El Millo (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The main point of the infobox poster is to be identifiable, which the one with Batman, Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler on is, as its used in most of the marketing and on the home video covers. The Batman/Catwoman one is not. I would take using the one without the billing block over the one with in this scenario, again I don't know if it is mandated to use a release one but I'm sure the priority is identifiability. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we given up on the poster? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer the floating heads one, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the floating heads one is both the best one and is used on home media, so it is the best identifying material, but the caveat seems to be we have to have the billing block? I don't know if that is a style guideline. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a billing block is required per se, it's just that we usually use the one with the billing block because that is usually the "theatrical release poster". Though I have noticed a peculiar (and frustrating trend) in the past couple of years where studios are increasingly fond of releasing payoff posters without a billing block. It's infuriating, but it is what it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

so I have spent a bit investigating today and I can't find any other instance of the current poster with billing block that is found at The Numbers, which leads me to believe it has been modified. It is not at Google Image Search, IMP Awards, or the Movie Poster Database. Also, per WP:FILMPOSTER we are not instructed to use a poster because it has a billing block but an image that is representative of the product and recognizable. To that end, I will be uploading a new poster, sans billing block because the current image is neither common or representative of the film.

• This appears to be the most common one.
• There is also this one, I can slightly recall it, I'm not sure how commonly known it is but it does have a billing block.
• Both images are better representations of the product and give us appearances of characters without using separate NFC images which is a benefit. Can we please decide between these so a new one can be uploaded asap. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The first one, I have seen the current one more than I've seen the second one. But the version of the first one that should be used is this one (which I had linked to above), that says "Only in theaters" instead of "Only in cinemas", since "cinemas" is wording for international posters and posters that are specific to the country of production of the film are always preferred. —El Millo (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen the second one before, so I believe that's fan-made. I agree with using El Millo's version (though do we have a better "source" than Reddit?). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the poster from Rotten Tomatoes, seen here within its page in lower resolution. —El Millo (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that works for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, finally I can be at peace Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Untitled Batman film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untitled Batman film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30 § Untitled Batman film until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling All "The Batman" Fans!

to all of "The Batman" fans, would anyone be willing to help with Draft:Edward Nashton (The Batman franchise). any help would be much appreciated! Jstewart2007 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I should note that it is highly unlikely that draft will make it to the mainspace anytime soon. Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman franchise) has a better chance, but the prospects are still quite slim. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated box office on May 8

I want to update the box office because on May 8, 2023, on the "2022 in film" page, the film's gross was updated through Box Office Mojo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1153888051 181.67.203.170 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, all mentions of box office earnings are already accurate with the diff given. I am confused about what change is needed. If you decide to reopen, please clarify what you need changed. Heart ^(talk) 22:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to update the box office number from $770.9 million to $771 million by checking the Box Office Mojo here: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tttt1877830/

The box office was updated as of May 8, 2023, as I posted above. 181.67.203.170 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The source said $770,962,583 but people are posted above what the source says, you shouldn't round up, I've removed the field as you're just abusing it. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to before the dispute was raised. I encourage this to be resolved swiftly, and to follow the numbers as provided by the source. I am however not aware if there is any specific guideline on rounding that could be of use here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If a source says something, you should make sure wikipedia is equal to the source, you get a number from a source and start to round it up or down, then you're no longer following what the source says. Rounding up or down seems a breach of WP:OR in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with WP:OR. Reliable sources round large numbers (on the order of millions and greater) all the time. DonQuixote (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask, have you read MOS:UNCERTAINTY? Govvy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I've taught undergraduate physics lab for decades. MOS:UNCERTAINTY doesn't apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, per the MOS:LARGENUM part of what you pointed to

• The speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s
• but Particle velocities eventually reached almost two-thirds the 300-million-metre-per-second speed of light.

which does apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've met a nuclear physicist who couldn't install a printer driver correctly in a school! If you have an exact number, why would you change that number? From accurate to inaccurate due to rounding a number? The source said one thing, so you feel it's right to change what the source says? From a legal prospective it could be said you're fiddling with the numbers??!! Govvy (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have an exact number, why would you change that number?

Context matters. The infobox is for quick-and-dirty information. Three significant digits in the infobox is adequate for an article of this type. A more accurate figure can be mentioned in the article proper. Seriously, as implied in the above example, using 299,792,458 m/s or 300 million m/s or 3.0×10⁸m/s depends on context. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It still counts as changing the number changing 770,962,583 to 770.9, that's reducing the actual figure by 62,583 instead of increasing it by 37,417. 771 is more accurate. Indagate (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, by the rules of arithmetic, that rounds up to 771.0 million anyways, so Govvy is incorrect even wrt that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Here's my issue with rounding up. Imagine a film that has made $999,962,583. A lot of benchmarks in the industry define the $1 billion mark as a milestone, and some technical observers would be apt to point out that the film in our imaginary example did not reach the $1 billion mark on technical grounds. While we aren't near a milestone in this example, it's still fair to want to be consistent across Wikipedia. In my opinion, you should either round down to $770.9 (despite the greater margin of inaccuracy) or simply stick with the full number. Just my opinion. I have to assume this has been thoroughly discussed many times at WT:FILM over the years if anyone cares to dig up past discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  To break the stalemate, I propose that whatever the consensus be, whether it be a floor or ceiling in regards to rounding up the matter, perhaps there could be a footnote detailed the actual amount? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: The number of significant digits isn't set in stone and can vary depending on context. In the context of this film, there isn't that much difference between 770.96 and 771 so it shouldn't matter as much. DonQuixote (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  That problem only arises with milestones or numbers that are considered "important", not in 770 to 771 and not in most cases. —El Millo (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Rounding up wouldn't be the end of the world in this situation, but I think the context matters. In the infobox, there's more leeway to sticking with 4 significant digits and retaining $770.9 million, but in running prose, I'd be more likely to state $771 million. Regardless of the outcome here, someone could report the full number in an {{efn}} footnote. Seems like a good compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Except rounding results in 771.0 million. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok I think I have an idea. I think that first, we can just snag a tilde to whatever quantity is chosen (ie ~771M or ~770.9M) and then have a footnote there to clarify if it's rounded up or down. Does this break the stalemate? In the prose, is it ok if we say that the film made "approximately $771/770.9M" or do we want to be precise? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  All of that is inherently implied in rounded figures and unnecessary if you use the 771 figure. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  In prose, I would not use the full number, and the use of "approximately" isn't generally needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  @DonQuixote @GoneIn60 I notice this thread hasn't been updated in a few days. With that being said, have we decided on any final consensus yet? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

With only a handful of participants, the consensus here would be rough, but I am fine with the rounded $771 million figure as long as an {{efn}} is used in the infobox next to the stated amount. The efn can simply say, "rounded from $770.96 million", or something along those lines. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind as long as you use proper arguments and precedents. (If you really want to use the 770 figure, the applicable convention is to use '+' or 'plus' or to outright state that the actual figure is more than that.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright folks, I'll dip my toes in the water here and go for @GoneIn60's approach if that's ok. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I still don't see a valid reason not to round up from 770.96 to 771. There's no particular significance to the 771 figure, it's not comparable to going from 999 to a billion or from 499 to 500. There's no need for any clarification either, as it's just common practice to round up, especially when the difference is so small. —El Millo (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We also never do this when rounding up or down box office gross in film infoboxes, it's just a common practice and there's hardly ever been any confusion. Unless there's a specific reason for this film in particular, we shouldn't be doing it. —El Millo (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo So what do you think we should do then? Stick to 770 or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless the difference between the actual value and 771 is significant, it's rather unnecessary. As El Millo pointed out, it's not like a billion or 500.

Also, I'd like to add that exact figures are only important (over rounded figures) if your intention is to present data that others are going to use to perform some kind of calculation (this is actually where WP:UNCERTAINTY is applicable). Since this is a general encyclopaedia article about a film, and the actual figure is available when you follow the citations back to the source, rounded figures are adequate here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, per this edit, the actual rounding that you want is from 770.96 because otherwise it'll be 771.0 from proper rounding to four digits. DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep it rounded up to $771 million, as it currently is. There's no exceptional reason to treat this figure or this film differently than any other figure. The only exceptions would be milestones, such as 100 million, 500 million or 1 billion, depending on the scale of the film of course, as for some films 100 million doesn't count as a milestone and for some smaller films 50 million could count as one. —El Millo (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, and with that rationale, I think it's safe to say that there's also no need for a footnote. With that being said, is it safe to say that all agrees to resolving the dispute by sticking to the SQUO? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we'd be sticking to the status quo because we see no compelling reason to change our approach. We seem to have majority in favor of the status quo. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, no efn then. Not a world-ending concern. Worth keeping in mind in future situations where the rounding is more extreme or near an industry-accepted milestone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the "under discussion" notice as we've come to consensus. —El Millo (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)