Talk:Superman in film

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The Superman film franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.
• Josh Wigler (2009-05-06). "'Tudors' Star Henry Cavill Was So Close To Playing Superman, He Even Wore The Cape!". MTV Splash Page.
• Rebecca Ascher-Walsh (1998-05-29). "Cape Fear". Entertainment Weekly.
• Vaneta Rogers (2010-06-28). "Writer Details the Superman Movie (5) That Never Came To Be". Newsarama.
• Rick Marshall (2010-01-26). "'White Collar' Actor Recalls Brief Time As Brett Ratner's Superman". MTV Splash Page.
• Rick Marshall (2014-09-08). "Ashton Kutcher Describes His 'Superman' Audition, Makes A Pitch For He-Man?!". MTV Splash Page.
• Mike Bracken (2010-12-22). "Snyder's 'Superman' Movie Inspired By 'Superman: Secret Origin'?". Moviefone.

Cast and characters section

Upon viewing X-Men (film series) I feel we should model our section to theirs. Characters who have appeared in more than one film should probably only be listed. Since this is a group effort, I need other people's opinion. Then we can do a "Full list" (akin to this). It can have characters, like Jason or Richard White or whatever who only appeared in one film. What do you guys think? Also, due to WP:Crystal, and the fact that the Man of Steel sequel likely won't happen without being rebooted, we cannot include characters for the Man of Steel sequel. Cheers. —Wildroot (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, after three days, obviously nobody cares about this so I have decided to go ahead. However, I still think something like this can be provided. We can include characters like Gus Gorman, Robert Webster or whoever appeared in only one film. That way everybody is happy. —Wildroot (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Man of Steel

Hello, I am the user Jok3r of Italian Wikipedia. I noticed that in the future of the franchise is still The Man of Steel, when it was confirmed his cancellation last month. Whenever I raise the section by including it in failed projects, the change is reported as vandalism, why? In future developments let alone the Mark Millar's project.--82.52.157.241 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the user who has been reverting your edits. However, since we don't want to confuse the audience or reader, it is probably best not to do something like that. Although good for you for being bold. I still can't find Mark Millar accountable. The man is responsible for the Orson Welles Batman Hoax, claimed he was taking over the Superman franchise back in 2003 (which was false), Lost a bet with Harry Knowles over the casting of Superman (Millar claimed to have "inside sources"), amongst other things. I did a lot of research on the failed projects section and that is what I came across with Millar. Millar even stated "for something official in Christmas", which could mean a news release. I am still undecided about Millar's involvement. —Wildroot (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Man of Steel can be defined canceled. Jeff Robinov has confirmed the abandonment last month in the Wall Street Journal. To hear Millar, it seems that his project is working to Warner, because otherwise it would speak so much?

PS:Wildroot, I saw your sandbox, like me you're fan of Tim Burton and superhero! We could help in finding information.--82.52.157.150 (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's canceled, that's what it says in the article. Hopefully Warners will announced a news release shortly.—Wildroot (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it has been resurrected, and resurrected in a big way. Today it was announced that Zack Snyder would direct The Man of Steel, which includes Christopher Nolan as its executive producer. Primogen (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Superman Unleashed

I added the new information going around about Superman Unleashed. I don't edit wikipedia often so it would be nice if some more experienced editor looked over what I did to make sure it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.209.241 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it. Please take in part of Wikipedia's issue of reliable sources. A silly movie website claiming to have hacked on the Legendary Pictures computer newtwork doesn't seem very accurate to source for an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wildroot (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if it is going to be a reboot or a sequel!

This is in regards to the "Future" section of this article. Look everyone, we do not have any concrete evidence whether the upcoming Superman movie is going to be a sequel or a reboot. There are some unofficial sources say it is going to be a sequel, and other unofficial sources say it will be a reboot, but never has an official source said weather the film will be a reboot or sequel. I've read the sources in this article that supposedly confirm reboots or sequels and most of them actually just people hypothisizing about a sequel or saying there might be a reboot (i.e they say JACK SHIT, this often referenced article for example does NOT confirm a reboot). For all we know, the next movie may never be made!

Until the day comes when the next Superman movie starts pre-production, we should not claim that a reboot, sequel, or movie at all, is definitely going to be made. And if and when the day does come, make sure you source it to an undeniable, irrifutible, perfectly clear official source.--Little Jimmy (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That Warner Bros. studio exec (Jeff Robinvow) said that Superman Returns did not meet the studio's expectations, therefore they want to "reintroduce" the character. IMO, that sounds like another word for rebooting the franchise. What do you think? Wildroot (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reintroduce" can mean any number of things other than a reboot, including a remake, prequel, retcon, spin off, reimagining, crossover, "semi-sequel" (like SR was), or just simply a sequel with a different subject matter and tone. A reboot is just one of the many possibilities he may have meant by "reintroduce". Unless someone ever actually utters the magic words, we can't be sure of anything.--Little Jimmy (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. However, taking into effect with these policies, isn't it obvious that Warner Bros. is rebooting? Any Superman nerd on the Internet talks about it. Perhaps Robinvow was trying to avoid using the word "reboot" (like when the term remake transforms into "re-imagining"; same thing) because everyone (Batman, Hulk, Star Trek, RoboCop, etc.) is rebooting. Maybe I'm paranoid. Lets wait until the next Warner Bros. press release or something. Wildroot (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the "Be Bold" policy. Hell, my act of editing this article to begin with is proof of that. But the thing is, we can't just make shit up. Nobody has ever said the "magic words"; reboot or sequel. We are only supposed to post facts, not fan theories. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a gossip board.--Little Jimmy (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I know that. Why are you acting so crazy? Getting the words "reintroduce" and "reboot" mixed up isn't that big of a deal. However, seeing the recent news, there probably will end up being a reboot or something similar. Just calm down. Peace. Wildroot (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i cleaned up the Superman Unleashed (film) article (which was as bad as the section originally here), leaving only the bare bones about it. if people think it really is too soon for even this info, ok, i can see their point, but there does appear to be evidence for a film in production now with this title. and i linked to that article (which i didnt start) from here. if people think its too soon, please nominate for deletion and redirect. i added "film" cause if this does turn out to be the movie name, there will be other media (comics) with same name. i know wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but i tried to write about what is known NOW about what is happening on a film for future release. i welcome feedback. also, people will come to wikipedia and type in superman unleashed, and i think getting a stub explaining its current status is better than a redirect to the film series with no mention of the name. and of course i agree that we have no info on whether this film is a sequel or not. i do think this is a significant enough phenomenon to allow some info now, including an article acting as a sort of placeholder for the eventual info that will come out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

← I would not use "reboot" in connection to the WSJ citation and instead just go straight to the quote. The citation does not explicitly identify a "reboot", but we have plenty of other citations saying this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Unencyclopaedic Language. (And it's awful, just awful!)

Uccch. Reading the "failed concepts" section, or whatever it's called: First, I notice that the section describing the proposed Batman vs. Superman script refers to Clark Kent's love life by saying "Clark sways with a romance with Lana Lang..."

Hmm, I thought. That's a little odd. And continued reading. In the description for the VERY NEXT failed film treatment, our Wikipedia refers to a young Kent getting a job at the Daily Planet, and guess what he does there? He "swings a romance with Lois Lane".

WTF, people, this is an encyclopedia! It's really kinda . . . sickening, actually, that someone looked this article, which is SO detailed, has SUCH a wealth of interesting (if, ultimately, trivial) information, and said to himself, "I know what I'll do! I'll edit this article, and stick some of my favorite slang into the text!" Like . . . THAT'S what you do with your time, dude? Edit Wikipedia in a thoroughly unproductive, useless way?!?"

Be Bold in Updating Articles, I know. But I'm NOT gonna fix it myself, not just yet, anyway, 'cause right now I can't stand to go on READING the thing. I'm just too terrified there may be a proposed storyline coming up, in which Superman gives Lori Lemaris some "bling", and in return she offers up the "booty" to him. --Ben Culture (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

at least the filmmakers havent done this to the comic book franchises...yet. can you imagine? batmobile with spinning rims, superman with a huge silver "s" around his neck? Spiderman living in a trailer park with his continually pregnant common law wife, Mary Jane? the Hulk with tattoos of "Mom" and "no mercy" on his biceps? see Idiocracy for inspiration for this great new trend! Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t even get through the first paragraphs before being confused by the language. “Donner had already shot 80% of Superman II before it was decided to finish shooting the first film. Richard Lester finished with II and returned for Superman III.” - Where does Richard Lester spring from? I take it it is saying that Richard Donner left the project after completing Superman: The Movie, but with only 80% of Superman II complete, at which point Richard Lester was employed to finish Superman II, and then to film Superman III? I’d make the change myself, only I am not sure how to explain the departure of Donner and the arrival of Lester.

I also don’t think it can be correct to say that “Hamilton was unable to shoot in England as he had violated his tax payments.” That just doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps he couldn’t film in England without making himself liable for tax, and chose to remain a tax-exile abroad that year, or perhaps he was unwilling to return to the UK because he was wanted for some tax issue, but the expression “violated his tax payments” is woefully unclear/ wrong. Jock123 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Television versions

I removed the television versions section from the page. These are dealt with on each film's individual page, and didn't need to be discussed in length with every individual cut/addition on here. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Smith

Can what he says in his "Evening With" series really be considered as a source. I say this because it seems obvious that these programs are produced as entertainment and while some of the stories are based on fact (Smith wrote a Superman screenplay), he likely exaggerated many of these stories for comedic effect. I'd like to raise the issue is this a legitimate source. It would kind of be like taking someone's stand-up act and using that as a Wikipedia source. I think Smith is entertaining but I'm somewhat skeptical. There is a lot of material here on the topic of Superman Lives which is directly from 'Evening With'.Mundilfari (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

His claims have been supported by people like Sylvain Despretz, and is also referenced in reliable magazine articles from people involved on Superman Lives. Some of the plans for the film he mentioned are also found in Tim Burton's book, Burton on Burton. Wildroot (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolute Justice

Hey question, should Absolute Justice go on this page?173.95.138.76 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it was just a two-hour episode of the television series. That's how it's treated on its Wikipedia article.-5- (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

movie versions (Christopher Reeve)

As mentioned, SUPERMAN II was re-issued in a director's cut in 2006. A scene in which the super villains kill a small boy was inserted. So was a scene in the Fortress where Superman talks to the ghost of his father (Marlon Brando) -- this was cut out and not added until after Brando's death because of Brando's demands for a share of the profits of the first movie. The principal change was in the ending. In the original version, Superman lures the villains to his Fortress in the Arctic, deprives them of their super powers, and then throws Zod off an ice ledge, supposedly killing him, while Lois punches Ursa character and shoves her off an ice ledge, supposedly killing her, and Nonn tries to fly away but only succeeds in falling, supposedly killing him. (Killing bad guys was definitely not a Superman trait and totally unexpected of Lois.) Next thing we know Superman has redeposited Luther in prison and gives Lois a "super kiss" that wipes her memory of his secret identity and of everything that's happened, and finally apologizes to the President. In the Director's cut, the three villains apparently die as before, but this time Superman whisks Lois (and supposedly Luther) a mile or two from the Fortress and then destroys the Fortress with his x-ray vision, he then repeats the (absurd) trick from the first movie and makes time run backward - not just by minutes but by a number of days - to the moments before the atomic bomb destroyed the Phantom Zone, so the atomic bomb is diverted, the villains are restored (alive!) to the undamaged Phantom Zone, all the destruction never took place, and everyone's memory of the events (including Lois's) are erased. The entire world must live through the next few days all over again, but without the super villains. No apology to the President. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes with recent edit

Hello fellow editors. I'm Wildroot, the guy who brought this article to FA status. I recently did a heavy rewrite on the section dealing with the upcoming film. The article was pushing 80,000 bytes, with many of the citations featuring rumored content and unreliable sources. So, I deleted that information, along with other information that did not serve any purpose (such as a list of the the producers to the unproduced Superman Returns sequel). I kept most of the written content that already contained reliable citation and documenative info. In addition, I updated the article with new information regarding directors involved with the reboot before Zack Snyder signed on, Zimmer's hiring, and the December 2012 release date. Wildroot (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I lurve you. In a non-creepy cyber-stalky way. That stuff was causing eyebleed and I'm still new enough I had no idea where to start. Millahnna (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still some of my research in the Proposals for fifth film section that I need to rewrite. Wildroot (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reboot is not a Reboot

Despite what happens in the article a piece of valuable info was taken out. What info you may ask? The answer is this: Zack Snyder clearly stating that the film is not a remake and a remake is a reboot. You can't remake a film without rebooting the series or part of the series.--Schmeater (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So by your logic, Batman Begins is a remake of Batman? Wildroot (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Snyder merely means that he won't be remaking the 1978 Superman film. It will be a new take on the origins not seen on film before, i.e. a reboot.-5- (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Snyder specify what kind of reboot he was making? No, Batman Begins is not a reboot of TB's Batman, it is a remake of that Batman film series. Without any proof as to what kind of remake it is, Wildroot you cannot put it down as a reboot. You can mention plans for it to be a reboot, but you must include Snyder's quote and mention the possibility of it it being an interquel or ae a reboot. because until any other further details are posted you have no right to assume. Is that interview not a reliable source that you just took it off the page? Making assumptions that it is a reboot is your own personal opinion whereas I am using Snyder's quote as an encyclopedic text. And he also said it won't have any connections to the other films, why say that? Why not say it's upright a reboot? Why would you not say that it's a reboot with new origins. No, it could be that but it's not clearly mentioned as that is it? It's mentioned as a possibility of that and also of the possibility that it will not mention the original superman film origin but imply it and add new mythology too it. Until Snyder says it's a reboot, it's a reboot. Until then you have no right to call it a reboot despite what past people have said. Wikipedia also details on the present, then why are you only using the past to your advantage? Because you want people to believe you into it's a reboot and hope the WB will listen and for sure make it a reboot? Well read this well, WB doesn't give a damn. Now I wont' edit anything until this is resolved.--Schmeater (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. The fact that you think I'm conspiring to have WB executives read Wikipedia and change their minds about the new Superman film is just too silly, but very amusing. Thanks for the laugh. Wildroot (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't play smart, you know what I'm talking about. I'm a Wikipedian too. All I'm saying is put down the quote and then this which questions the fact as to if it really is a reboot or a variation of that quote.

Man of Steel

The reference given in the article says the studio would NOT confirm this was the film they were shooting. all the news about Henry Cavill's casting as Superman says nothing about the name of the film. I think we should eliminate all mention of "superman: man of steel" (in this article and all associated articles) as the next film until the studio producing it says thats the name. its still in pre-production according to IMDB (not a RS), so the name, storyline, position in the superman continuity are all up for grabs as far as I know.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it as the section title. The only mention in the article now is that it says it is "reportedly" the title, which is okay since its not a confirmation. As long as we don't treat it as being confirmed I think it's okay.-5- (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

The following bolded text seems like baseless rumor amplification and is not supported by the citation. (boldface added)

Ben Affleck was intrigued by the offer to direct, but also declined out of his lack of experience in CGI. "A lesson I’ve learned is to not look at movies based on budget, how much they’ll spend on effects," Affleck continued, "or where they will shoot. Story is what’s important."[96]

The cited link, http://www.deadline.com/2010/11/oscar-ben-affleck-qa-on-the-town/, only says there was a rumour that Affleck was going to direct, and in the same breath asks Affleck whether big budget is important to him. He replies with the quote above, in which he does not say anything about declining, says nothing about whether there was an offer, and say nothing about declining based on "lack of experience in CGI".

Michael Barkowski (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason Batman Vs Superman production was cancelled

The previous iteration of the article made the claim Batman vs. Superman was to reboot both the Batman and Superman franchises with a series of separate sequels. This is untrue and not verified by the source cited. WB saw Batman Vs Superman as a way to gain additional mileage from the two movie properties and saw it as an ending to the two popular franchises. They considered it as an alternative to restarting them, which would have involved showing the origins or development of both characters. As we now know, they took the latter option. While the source states that "pairing the men in tights could kick-start solo projects long languishing in development", this is supposition on the part of the article's writer and was not part of Warner's plans for development, as the new source makes clear. Pizzadude.ca (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus that the the new title is more accurate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Superman (film series) → Superman in film — Requesting this move per Spider-Man in film and Batman in film. It is a little inaccurate to call the topic a film series since the continuity is disjointed and also since the article covers projects that failed to go beyond development. The move can widen the scope more, not just to be about each Superman film, but about Superman as a cinematic icon. --Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Move per nom. Superman in film also removes the in-universe context that is associated with a film series and allows a much broader scope.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move. This article is no longer about a single film series, and moving would avoid the problems in continuity, or whether Supergirl is part of the series, and would allow discussion of the early film serials. However "Superman in other media" also exists, so we must try to avoid too much crossover - although there's little there at the moment. Also, if these article titles are becoming more common, then maybe some naming convention guidelines should be considered. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  We have some discussion at the comic book films task force's talk page about that. We do need to reconcile the "in other media" and "in film" setups. I imagine that a "Film" section in an "in other media" article would be a list with a hatnote to the "in film" article. In addition, we should probably make the "in film" articles more directly accessible from the main superhero articles themselves. If you have any interest in the task force, check it out here! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Move. You beat me to it. Although I was probably going to wait when the reboot film becomes a article. I did know it was definitely going to happen sometime though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  The discussion at the list article prompted me to do this. Just because the project in development is covered here does not mean it is the latest film in the so-called film series. Figured that the scope needed improvement, and the move will help accomplish that. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  I understand. Although I a not sure what list article you are talking about. I assume the DC comics film one. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose instead split the article in two, since there is a Superman film series, consisting of the Christopher Reeve films + Supergirl, and Superman Returns; and there is Superman in film which has other films on Superman, including the new start coming up. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  Nobody is denying that there is a film series. The point of the move is to encompass the Reeve film series, the Singer half-reboot, all the failed projects in between, and beyond. You can't have a "Superman in film" article without Reeve being in it. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  You can have a summary style overview of the Reeve film series (and its related accoutriements, Supergirl and Superman Returns) in the "Superman in film" article, while the Reeve film series (plus Supergirl and Superman Returns) remains in its own article. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It's not a series, it's a character. Gamaliel (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support for consistency's sake. –CWenger (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Breakout article for the 2012 reboot?

I have reverted Superman (film project) to a redirect. Firstly, there was nothing more available there than is here (as far as I can tell it was copied practically verbatim). This causes a problem of divergence of the two articles. Secondly (and possibly more importantly), it fails WP:NFF, which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production." It continues "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available."

I cannot see, at this stage, given that all the information can be housed quite nicely here, any reason why this article would justify an exception to this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I just didn't want to get into a whole thing with User:Rusted AutoParts. But, there now appears to be a consensus (at least among us), so there shouldn't be a problem.-5- (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RAP restored the article, so in essence he's contested the redirecting. At this point, it's probably better to take it to AFD for a more permanent solution, rather than contine to revert war. Otherwise, the article will probably continue to be recreated ad nausem until the film enters production,and AFD can be enforced without risking 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it for deletion, as it serves as a useful redirect. It is in clear contravention to WP:NFF, so think User:Rusted AutoParts needs to explain reasons for exception to the guideline before creating the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That does not excuse edit warring. Redirecting an article is an allowed outcome of an AFD, A and is certainly enforceable without you risking 3rr on what is essentially a content dispute. - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am in danger of being in an edit war, it's because you reverted my revert without adding to the discussion. What is your opinion on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, edit warring almost always occurs because someone reverted someone else. Any reversion other than for vandalism, sock reverts, and the like are not exempt from 3RR restrictions, none of which are the case here. The article is going to continue to be recreated until the film enters production. Simply redirecting the article back here every time has not solved the problem, nor will it. - BilCat (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been clearer - I meant your opinion on the breakout article contravening WP:NFF. Neither yourself nor User:Rusted AutoParts have joined in this discussion despite having reverted that page. I've tried to initiate dialogue. Let's stick to the topic here and worry about edit war warnings (thanks!) on my user page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point I agree, as well. Maybe if we'd cut down the material in this article to point to the new one it wouldn't have seemed so strange. But given NFF, well yeah, no reason for it yet. Millahnna (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Going back to beginning of this "film project" debate, during the AfD for The Avengers (2012 film), its was reestablished that general Wikipedia guidelines like WP:GNG trump subject specific guidelines like WP:NFF. Superman (film project) had 31 references which I would say surpasses WP:GNG. I too was originally against these types of articles but we have shown that we can develop these articles successfully in article space with the merit of WP:NFF at heart. At this point I would almost rather see this go to AfD to determine an absolute consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you here. What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as WP:NFF, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines? The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. Unless there is an exceptional amount of well-sourced material that cannot be housed on subject articles, where common sense dictates that it needs a breakout article, then WP:NFF should be followed. This clearly doesn't apply here as the exact same material was used. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, more of a reason to take this debate to AfD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with TT's reasonings. Project guideliens should exist to explain how to apply general guidelines to the specific subjects covered by a project. When they contradict existing general guidelines, then the general guidelines should take precedence. Also, although some of the 31 sources cited in the new article may not qualify as reliable sources, there are plenty there that do. - BilCat (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Previously stated by TriiipleThreat, this same situation happened with The Avengers, which was a film project page. The film was greenlit with a cast already set. I thought since Superman is greenlit (not filming yet, hence (film project),) and there is casting underway, we should have a film project for it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:06 28 March 2011 (UTC

Not as per WP:NFF we shouldn't. The Avengers (film project) was an exception to the usual guideline due to the wealth of sourced information on the page, that couldn't ordinarily fit on a series/franchise page like this. We'd need exceptional reasons to contravene the guideline. Not the case here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did have alot of sources on it when i first created the page. They were removed during an update from User:-5-. I badly contest re-re-redirecting the page back here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:12 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these film project articles have nothing to with what stage of development a given film is in but rather if the topic alone has had enough significant coverage by reliable resources as stated by WP:GNG to support its own article. WP:NFF still exists and future film articles with less than a significant amount of coverage should not exists.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's back to my earlier point that WP:GNG should NOT supersede WP:NFF unless for occasions where it is implausible to follow WP:NFF and common sense kicks in. Which isn't the case here. WP:NFF is straightforward enough and applies exactly here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok - AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, i support a redirect until filming commences, i don't want it deleted.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:12 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah - now what do we do? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw your AFD and redirect the page. No use wasting good info. I have a colne on my page anyway so when the time comes to begin filming, i can just undo it and don't have to worry about re-creating the whole thing. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:12 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what happens with the AfD. All the info is here anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur, The least likely result of this AfD is true deletion, it the article fails to keep it will probably just be redirected here anyway. The AfD will help us point to concise conclusion no matter what the result.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1960 films

I've just come across Return of Mr. Superman (Mr. Superman ki Wapsi) and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230834/ - surely this article ought to have mention of these Bollywood films, even if they were unauthorised they are kinda notable for being such early representations of Superman on film? Flicking through IMDB there's a couple of pre-1974 films with Superman in the title... I appreciate that this article has just been renamed, but it's hard to justify keeping the FA rating given the current content under the current article name. FlagSteward (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even more significantly, there are several films missing which were authorized: Kirk Alyn in Superman and in Atom Man vs. Superman, and George Reeves in Superman and the Mole Men. I can't imagine why they would be omitted from "Superman in film". --Keeves (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This either needs renaming or a lot of material added

Except for a single blow-off sentence at the beginning, this article is entirely about the Salkind-and-beyond Superman, which misses a large part of the history of Superman in film - there's nothing here about the movie serials, or Superman and the Mole Men, or the Fleisher Superman shorts. It needs either some serious work or a retitling. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Characters table

The current heading of "Cast and characters" is not accurate. A Cast and characters list is a list of the cast (group) of one film (see: wikt:cast #4). The table here cannot be referred to as a cast list. It is a list of characters and the actors who portrayed them in several different films. I attempted to change it to Characters and their portrayers, but it was reverted because an editor has an aversion to the word "portrayers", even though it's a very valid and accurate term. If someone has another idea, let's hear it. But, let's not make comparisons with other (inferior) articles (they can also be improved). This is a featured article, which should be the epitome for standards, not a follower. Thanks. Musdan77 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, "portrayers" is not a commonly used term in this context, and less accurate or concise than "cast" or "actor". Have you ever seen "portrayer" used to convey a film actor before? The table shows the characters and the cast that played them in each film. Therefore "Cast and characters" is a perfectly accurate term, and a common one in these kinds of article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "As I mentioned on my talk page." You just repeated what you said before, instead of responding to what I wrote above (which is basically a response to what you said before). Like I said, if you have another way to word it, fine. "Actors" is better than "cast", but not quite as accurate as "portrayers". If you read the definition for cast, you'd understand how that word is not right in this case. Sure, if you go down a column you see the cast for each film, but that's not what this table is for. The section is about the characters and each character's portrayer(s). Can you see the distinction? Let's hear some opinions from others. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as anyone coming here would not have seen my talk page, I thought it prudent to show my opinion here also. But the fact remains that "portrayers" is clearly not appropriate or accurate. Without resorting to the same tone that you are using, try putting "portrayer" in Google to see how often it is used in this context. I have popped something on the film project page to invite more opinion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Rob here, in that "potrayers" makes little sense. If you're looking to change it, then "actors" suits the cause much better than "portrayers", but "cast" is equally as semantically accurate. drewmunn talk 08:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how we can make "actors" work in a concise phrase to title the section. "Characters and the actors that portrayed them" covers all the bases, but isn't a suitable section title. "Cast and characters" is accurate and concise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Actors and characters portrayed" is what I was thinking, but it's still in no way as nice as the current solution. drewmunn talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Rob Sinden, "Cast and characters" is perfectly accurate. "Characters and their portrayers" is awkward wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The term "cast" in film comest from the definition arrange and present in a specified form or style, and that can be equally, if not more accurately, used to demonstrate multiple actors across different incarnations of a character. The cast would then be that specific portrayal, so different casts produce different performances. For instance, Heath Ledger's cast of The Joker was different Jack Nicholson's cast of the same character. drewmunn talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I can see why "Cast and characters" is disputable, but I do not think the "portrayers" replacement works either. I think people are used to "Cast and characters" because it makes sense at a quick glance. I'm not sure what other headings we could come up with, though. What about "List of roles"? Would a "role" not imply a cast member playing a character? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if we stripped out the non-recurring roles, it could be "Recurring characters". I don't see the point of non-recurring roles in comparison tables like these anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. I was thinking the same thing for Iron Man in film (wanting to get the move over with to then work on it). It creates a lot of dead space. Maybe there should be another way to at least ID one-shot appearances where we don't create dead space. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with "Cast and characters" for the entire section, but if it's changed to "Recurring characters", I think that the non-recurring roles should still be included in a separate table. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• We do have these: List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series and List of Harry Potter cast members. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks, everyone for your input. Thanks, Rob, for putting that on the WikiProject Film. And I like (and agree with) your last comment (I wish you'd said that before). I'm still not sure why "Characters and their portrayers" is "awkward". Is it because it's unusual or is it that both words end with "ers"? (just wondering). Anyway, I think that "Recurring roles/characters" (either way) is good. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes: separating recurring and non-recurring. I hope it's acceptable to all. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Brando could be included in Superman II, with a note saying "Donner cut only" or something? Other than that, fine by me. Do we need the individual cast members for the non-recurring roles though? Cast lists are available at each individual film after all... --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more or less with Rob on this; I don't think the non-recurring characters add that much, although it may be worth keeping the ones that apparently appear in other Superman media i.e. Emil Hamilton, Faora, Whitney Fordman. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I find the end result to be an absolute eyesore. It worked better with the involved in the table rather than them being separated into different groups. As well as the unfair omission of Supergirl 's canon in the film series. The table I constructed and was instilled for a long time before this change (one i wasn't aware went on) is much easier on the eyes, sorts each character/actor with their associated appearances and worked better structurally. Rusted AutoParts 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole purpose for the table is to show the main characters and how they span different films. If they are only in one film, they don't fit. This article is about the character of Superman, and he did not appear in Supergirl, so it doesn't belong. The red and blue colors (in your version) are too bright and are hard on the eyes for some people. But, if you have ideas on how the table could be "better structured" (besides including non-recurring), we would welcome hearing them. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Supergirl

I do not think supergirl should be part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not? This film is part of the Christopher Reeve canon so it would be a serious ommission to leave it out, especially since Reeve was actively linked to the project at one stage. Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, then why the heck isn't the Catwoman film abomination on the batman in film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎50.5.219.27 (talk • contribs)

You should probably discuss that at the batman in film talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Batman in film which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article

@Betty Logan: Yes, this is officially a featured article, but from the year 2007 – except a few words there haven′t been more here than what I have excluded. And even this part isn′t really good: I mean the chepter "Superman Returns" is too long, the chepter for Superman IV too short, etc.. So the Feature comes from a time before Man of Steel has been relased and this movie changed a lot – Before that there has been except a few small movies just the Reeve-Superman films. So the excluded part was the fault for the feature. I think it is a first step to exclude the articles to bring a bit tidiness in both artcles. And this article is really bad. It schould get deselected again and get a Cleanup instead of that. I′ve tried to begin it. --Wikiolo (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to split the article you should follow the procedure at WP:PROSPLIT. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The split makes a lot of sense to me, for the reasons that Wikiolo has stated above. The Superman (1978 film series) article looked great when it was created and I recommend that it be reinstated. Are there any reasons not to split? Neelix (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support I mean the artcle Superman in film looks horrible. This version is closer a featured article than the article right now. --Wikiolo (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nature of the split is arbitrary. If you look at Superman (1978 film series) you will see that the "abandoned projects" section was also split out. With the exception of the potential Superman 5, all the other projects are seemingly unconnected to the 1978 series and would be better retained at Superman in film. This is where readers would expect to find material about abandoned projects. A whole chunk of history about Superman in film just simply excised from the article and relegated to a sub-article about a series that only has a tenuous connect to it. The Superman Returns section arguably should not have been split out either: while it is a homage to the original series and shares some plot points it is ultimately a completely new production: different studio, different cast, no returning crew. That basically leaves four paragraphs of material, so for what it's worth you may as well keep all the material here so it's all together. The size of the article does not justify it per WP:SIZERULE: the readable prose is under 50KB, which indicates a split is not necessary on size grounds. Overall this just looks like carving up an article for the sake of it in a very counter-intuitive manner. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your objections correctly, you 1) disagree with including abandoned projects on the split article and 2) disagree with splitting off only four paragraphs of material because that wouldn't be enough to justify a separate article. Have I summarized your arguments adequately? If so, perhaps the solution is simply leave the abandoned projects alone and to supplement Superman (1978 film series) with additional content from the articles about the individual films. Does that sound like a suitable compromise? Neelix (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree . --Wikiolo (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree. Even if there is enough material to support an article specifically centered on the 1978 film series, it does not necessarily follow that information should be removed from this article. This article is specifically an umbrella article for the topic i.e. it does not focus on one particular incarnation of the filmic Superman, it provides an overview of the whole topic. By the same token, just because an article exists about the Extended Universe or the 1978 film series that still does not mean this article should not cover it to some degree. The Batman in film article, for example, still provides a basic overview of the Christopher Nolan films (see Batman in film#Christopher Nolan) despite the existence of The Dark Knight Trilogy. The reason the Batman in film article does this is because if you removed all that information then it would no longer be comprehensive in its treatment of the topic. There isn't actually that much about the 1978 film series in this article (basically a brief paragraph about the background of each film, some common crew and some stats), and what little there is seems germane to the topic. As I pointed out earlier there isn't a size consideration here, and splitting out content would result in a less comprehensive treatment of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I state above, there is plenty of content in the articles about the individual films that could be added to Superman (1978 film series) so that no content need be removed from Superman in film. Would that address your concerns? Neelix (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to split out content from the individual film articles then that should be decided at those articles. Obviously I am not going to agree to the hypothetical removal of content from any article, because it depends on the nature of the content and its relevance to the topic. I am slightly concerned by this preoccupation with splitting content out of various articles just for the sake of creating another article. If you want to create a new article then ideally there should be new content to go in it; if there isn't then I think you really need to reconsider the need for another article. Just to reiterate: I think all the content currently in this article is relevant to covering this topic, and I oppose splitting it out. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article can stay. But there has to be created a new article so that you can cleanup this page a little bit. I think that this artivle should be an overview article. When people want to know more about a specific series (DC Extended Universe, 1978 series), then they can click on the specific article; if they want to learn more about a specific film, they can click on the movie article. --Wikiolo (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on navigational templates, "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." This template currently has no such article, which is one reason that we need an article specifically about the 1978 series. We shouldn't need additional discussions on the talk pages of the articles about the individual films; there is no need to remove content from those articles, but rather to duplicate it in the manner recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines on summary style. Shall we proceed with creating the Superman (1978 film series) article in this manner? Neelix (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Review

When the article won′t get a Cleanup as I have mentioned here and in the upper chepter, I will bring the article to the Featured article review. --Wikiolo (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Superman in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113045734/http://www.latinoreview.com/news/marsden-talks-superman-returns-557 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/marsden-talks-superman-returns-557

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Current Owner of Superman Movie License

The article currently states that "Warner Bros. acquired the rights entirely in 1993." There is no reference sited for this assertion. The documentary The Death of Superman Lives!: What Happened? released in 2015 indicates that WB does not actually own the movie license. The documentary indicates that John Peters owns the license. The film doesn't specify how he acquired the rights, although it seems likely that Peters bought the license when Cannon Films went bankrupt. The notorious Kevin Smith story would seem to back this up, since Kevin stated that the execs at WB told him that they couldn't just give him the Superman job, and that it had to go through John Peters. While much of Kevin's story is likely embellished, this particular aspect of the tale isn't particularly funny. It's just the reason he had to see Peters.

Does anyone have anything to back up the current claim that WB owns the Superman movie license, or does the article need to be changed?Wyldstaar (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)