Talk:Blue Beetle (film)

Report on Blue Beetle's DC future

Ok, so in the "future" section of the article, it says that Blue Beetle has been reported to be a part of the DCEU's future, but it doesn't have a verifiable source to back it up, much less a source in general. I thought we weren't supposed to add rumors to a Wikipedia article because it would cause disinformation or confusion or whatever, and if we want to actively avoid that, we can't have rumors in the article unless we maybe have a verifiable source to back the information up....or we just take down that part of the "future" section altogether. 72.213.40.101 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There are in fact two sources used in that section, one from Gizmodo discussing James Gunn's comments from January on it potentially being incorporated and one from Deadline Hollywood (a highly reliable site) reporting on the potential of the character being part of Gunn and Peter Safran's plans for the DC Universe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This film is projected to make back less than 1/3 of it's budget. The result will be James Gunn loses his job. The idea that Blue Beetle is going to be the key to some broader DC media ecosystem is WP:NOT. You have no sources for it, and all sources deny it except for Gunn's economic headcannon. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using WP:SPECULATION as a basis for claims, which are incorrect as the contents are reliably sourced in the article from Gunn himself and reputable trades: Gunn said Blue Beetle is the first DCU character, and even recently said that "DC Studios movies (and canon) start with Legacy". Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm referencing sourced material in the article. Please refrain from throwing around policy you haven't read in regards to an article you also did not read. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have read the policy and am one of the editors who have frequently edited this article and the Future section. Assumptions of box office and other events while discounting what is in the article is not a valid argument. We include in the article exactly what has been said of this film. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You said that The result will be James Gunn loses his job. The idea that Blue Beetle is going to be the key to some broader DC media ecosystem is WP:NOT. That is entirely speculative, and not even logical. DC, Gunn and Safran can decide to include Blue Beetle as canon if they want, whether the film makes or loses money, and the idea of a newly-appointed CEO being fired for a project he had little to do with to begin with just comes out of nowhere. —El Millo (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, my speculation based on evidence is bad, but the baseless speculation of you two is good because I am bad and you are good? Thanks for clearing things up! -- Sleyece (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no speculation on our part. The article includes precisely what Gunn and Solo said they will do with the character. There's no place for any speculation by editors, good or bad, on Wikipedia articles. —El Millo (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently there isn't speculation on your part, and in reality you just don't know what you're talking about. Gunn isn't "CEO", he's the Co-CEO, and he's not "newly appointed", but has instead been losing tons of money on every single project he's done for DC for a while now. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The projects you speak of (Shazam! Fury of the Gods and The FlashI assume) finished principal photography in August and October 2021, respectively more than a year before Gunn and Safran were appointed, and had already been in post-production for a long time by then. Blue Beetle and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom finished principal photography in August and July 2022, respective, also before Gunn and Safran were appointed. Gunn isn't credited in any of these films, and Safran is credited in Shazam! 2 and Aquaman 2 as he had already produced both first installments. So these aren't projects [Gunn]'s done merely because he is a CEO when they are released. But it still doesn't matter if these could be called projects he's done without being disingenuous, because our speculation on what will happen in the future doesn't matter in the least here, and articles' talk pages are for improving the articles and not for discussing editor's opinions and predictions, because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, information must be verifiable and we don't accept original research. There's no point in continuing this. —El Millo (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Flash lost money. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That and other projects hold no relevance here. We include exactly what Gunn, Soto, and the reputable trade sources state. Stating they implied something else is WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research. There is consensus that this film is still in the DCEU as planned, and no evidence strongly supports theories and speculation of this changing, only that the character will be in the DCU and the ideas and vision of the director for it to go in the DCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said that Blue Beetle is DCU cannon character. I said that it's projected to lose money, as has every project since Gunn became Co-CEO. However, projections of a $17 million opening weekend is a new level of potential failure. I'm actually impressed by it. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User seems to have a tendency to state his opinions on films as "objectively correct" facts and showing a lack of knowledge on WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. —El Millo (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User did not read, and is mad I called them out on it. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Blue Beetle is DCU Canon

James Gunn has confirmed that Blue Beetle is DCU canon. Jstewart2007 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried updating with current info a bit ago but admins undid it w/o explanation. Dunno why it's still considered DCEU when the producers AND filmmakers have both said it isn't and is actually the first DCU movie. —Jman "not a dude" 98 19:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Same with the above, that is not what Gunn and the trades have said, and the information is adequately and correctly presented in the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just the first film in what James Gunn plans to be the DCU. There is no DCU until a plan comes together. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References

His name is not Shanchez. Know His Name!

Title says 103.50.20.149 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Mexican film?

I fail to see how this is a Mexican film. It's produced and distributed by American companies, filmed in America, takes place in America and was directed by an American. The reference from gatewayfilmcenter does not seem particularly reliable. Can anyone point to more reliable references calling this a Mexican film? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Filmaffinity also isn't a reliable source, it's just like IMDb is. —El Millo (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly removed it, as it is essentially an unsourced claim. —El Millo (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error

Where is a citation with an error message regarding an unrecognized parameter? Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is Bruna Marquezine not a starring actor?

Doesn't show up on the poster but why? Alexysun (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of contracts and star power. But that doesn't really matter, because we just follow the billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: It is evident that Bruna Marquezine's character has a notable role in the film and her image is even very prominent in the poster art, despite the billing block. It's a similar situation to Spider-Man: Homecoming, where the absence of Jacob Batalon and Laura Harrier in the billing block led to this discussion (Link), which resulted in changes to the formatting of the "Cast" section. In the case of Blue Beetle, I also think it would be worth following the opening credits. YgorD3 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't just unilaterally decide to deviate from the billing block unless there has been substantial discussion about it like with Homecoming. However, I don't think it's a good precedent for us to arbitrarily bypass the studio's order every time we think it should be different — it's not up to us, after all. Before long, we'll have editors arguing that Superman (1978 film) should restore Christopher Reeve to his rightful place as the top-billed cast member, or that we should add Ben Affleck to The Flash (film) and Matt Damon to Interstellar (film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's arbitrary to utilize main credits order. It's what we do for the MCU, which sets a strong precedent for cinematic universes. The Affleck and Damon examples would absolutely be arbitrary, considering they are uncredited, but adding actors that are in the main credits sequence is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion. NickH (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Box-office bomb info

The movie is a box-office bomb. The common application of it has been 'a movie that did not meet double its budget'. The movie is after its 3rd weekend and would have to gross double of what it has already in order to break even. No movie (at least in the top 1000 by gross revenue from Box Office Mojo) has ever come close to doubling its revenue after the 3rd weekend. The most extreme cases get to barely 50% more. The general trend is 10-30% remaining increase. Therefore a doubling of gross revenue is a definite marginally negligible eventuality. Blue Beetle isn't some special movie, and the summer has passed. It is not doubling its revenue in the remaining 3-6 weeks it remains in theaters. Many movies this year have failed to reach this threshold and have been labeled as box-office bombs; Shazam, Black Adam, Indiana Jones, and many others. Additionally I added 2 more references to support the claim, and 1 which explicitly states the box-office bomb (box-office flop (interchangeable according to Wikipedia)). Please do no revert it without discussing it. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

a definite marginally negligible eventuality sounds very much like the sort of speculation discouraged by Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. With the remaining 3-6 weeks it remains in theaters you'll probably be right, but it seems you are premature. As far as reverting, I think the onus is on you in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) to form a consensus for your point of view. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

>"definite marginally negligible eventuality". It's not, that's just being pedantic based on the inaccuracy of my words, which were aimed at being neutral. To be more objective, it has never happened, therefore there is no evidence or reason to believe that it will happen. Hence, the onus to prove that this quantum-possibility is something to waste time considering is on a person or group doubting the history. Burden of proof should not be pushed to the limits of absurdity. It's akin to saying that a baseball player with 300 home runs in their 15th season is able to hit 300 more home runs over 5 seasons and therefore should be considered as a potential home run record breaker, whereas the absolute best home run hitters have hit well south of 200 in their last 5 seasons, with one exception also south of 300 (Mark McGwire 254, David Ortiz 163, Barry Bonds 149, as the highest). No, that's absurd and shouldn't be considered in a rational encyclopedic debate. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You are predicting what will or will not happen. That is not how Wikipedia works. Your absolute confidence does not justify it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As Pemilligan stated, you are adding premature information based on a likely outcome. Until said outcome actually happens, we cannot add that kind of information to the article.

Furthermore, as I noted in my edit, you did a poor job with stating the information to begin with. And the references are not properly formatted to be in line with the rest of the article. You also hastily undid my edit which include other changes not related to your specific information (such as removing Bruna Marquezine's name from the main cast list, which someone keeps adamantly adding in), all while calling it "possible vandalism". The reason is there, and you seem to have ignored it while stating that it has been "addressed" (which it hasn't, judging from this ongoing conversation).

There is no consensus for your addition to the article as of now, so please do not abuse your editing power while neglecting other people's edits.The boss 1904 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for wasting your time and seeming curt. I had to examine this thought in much, much more detail.

In the spirit of good faith (and the good of the order), I concede... (but not for the reasons stated) so to not affect the movie's performance until it has run its course in order to not influence the far-fetched potentialities that could make this a 1 in a million exception to the rule such as international releases, winning awards, viral spike in buzz, etc. On reflection, I don't think anyone should influence the movie's revenue until it has run its full course, by editing Wikipedia with this information (as likely as it may be) which would influence other's opinion of it as tenuous as that may be. That would be most in the spirit of neutrality.

My counter arguments however revolved around the following:

1) Statistical Precedence vs Speculation: While it is argued that claiming the film is a box-office bomb is speculation, I would argue that it is an informed prediction based on historical data and trends. I would argue it's an informed Wikipedia itself states that "verifiability" is a core principle, which my argument adheres to. There is no recorded instance of a film doubling its revenue after its 3rd weekend. Therefore, my statement has a strong empirical basis and isn't mere speculation.

2) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: While the guideline cautions against speculative material, it does not prohibit the inclusion of probable outcomes based on historical data. Not acknowledging a highly probable outcome can be equally misleading for readers.

3) BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD): Since the current state of the article might contain misleading or incomplete information about the movie's box office performance, my edits were in line with being "Bold." The 'Revert' has occurred, and now we are in the 'Discuss' phase. Here we are trying to reach a consensus, which is precisely what BRD prescribes. However in light of my concession, I agree that discussion should precede edits.

4) Ignore All Rules and In the apocalypse, there are no rules: These guidelines themselves suggest that, sometimes, strict adherence to one rule may conflict with the broader aim of Wikipedia, which is to improve content quality.

5) Wikipedia's Five Pillars: The fifth pillar emphasizes that "the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." If the spirit of the rule is to prevent speculation, then an interpretation of that rule which forbids the inclusion of highly probable outcomes based on all available evidence is contrary to that spirit.

In conclusion, the likely box office outcome of this movie is not just a matter of opinion but is backed by historical data and the trends of box-office performance. Hence, I believe that labeling the film as a "box-office bomb" is a fair characterization, based on all the evidence currently available, and it would serve Wikipedia's readers well to include this information.

My counter-points to my conclusion: 1) Timeframe: Box-office success can depend on many factors, including word-of-mouth, international markets, and other revenue streams like streaming services. The definition of a "box-office bomb" may need to consider a longer timeframe to be genuinely accurate. 2) Unforeseen Factors: While statistical trends provide strong evidence, there are always outliers. A significant event, like winning an award, could boost a movie's profits after the third weekend, making any previous labeling as a "box-office bomb" incorrect. 3) The neutrality principle: The final box-office number should not be affected by the contents of the article, as that would make it contingent and partly determined by said content.

Thank you all for helping me come to this realization, and once again my apologies. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)