Talk:DC Extended Universe

Films and Upcoming films

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

I agree with you. It actually used to be one section but someone separated them for whatever reason and no one ever bothered to undo it. I vote that they be combined again, for all the valid reasons you listed. FaceOffTournament (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page lists unreleased films separately, and that is what this article is apparently based off of. I think that's why they are separated here. That said, it sort of makes sense to separate them for the MCU, because released MCU films are sorted into phases (it's not just a released films section, each phase has its own section), and a film could potentially be moved between phases as needed. Take Ant-Man, for example: originally announced as part of Phase Three but moved to Phase Two. In the MCU's case, it probably makes the most sense to wait until a given film is released (because then it is truly a part of a given phase). But the DCEU isn't organized that way. It's just a series of films. That's why I'm thinking they probably belong all together. -RM (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

They absolutely do so my vote still stands to combine them. :) FaceOffTournament (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The upcoming films and unreleased films are listed separately due to WP:CRYSTAL. DarkKnight2149 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 on what grounds, then, does Marvel Cinematic Universe list all of the films, including those which are upcoming, in a single table? Also, I'm not entirely sure this change would break the rules set forth in WP:CRYSTAL. We're not alleging that the films are certain to be released on any given date, but at this point, verifiable sources have set release dates for certain upcoming films. Why can't we include them with the released films? I get what you're saying about not being able to be certain of the dates, but why does that require them to be separated?-RM (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong position as to whether or not we should include them together. But I'm certain that the reason they aren't listed together at the moment was probably because it was seen by whoever created the section as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since the films haven't been released yet.

With that being said, perhaps a possible solution would be to turn the "upcoming films" section into a subsection for the "Films" section. That's just a suggestion, though. DarkKnight2149 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that could work. The idea was to put them in a single table so that someone could view all of the notable information for all of the films in a single place. That said, we could perhaps put the tables together, and list the released films as subsections of the Films section, and have an Unreleased Films subsection below all of the released films. Then, list all of the unreleased films as subsections of that. So:

• Article
  • Films
    • Man of Steel
    • Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
    • Upcoming films
      • Suicide Squad
      • Wonder Woman
      • etc.

thoughts on that? This puts the table together, which was the original intention, and still separates the films from the upcoming films in a very clear way.-RM (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I second this. DarkKnight2149 03:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thirded, lol. Git'r done. FaceOffTournament (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... I was on vacation for a couple weeks. I'll make the change now -RM (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Future plot synopsis

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

Persistent disruptive editing

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

Cancelled and inactive projects

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

I have no idea if there is any precedence or policy related to this, but I see what you're saying. That said, development on Man of Steel actually began in 2008... A quote from the Man of Steel Wikipedia page: "In June 2008, Warner Bros. took pitches from comic book writers, screenwriters and directors on how to successfully restart the Superman film series." In that regard, anything related to DC Comics-based movies occurring in June 2008 or later could technically be seen as relevant. Perhaps we could come up with a set of guidelines to determine the relevance of any given cancelled project (since technically if it's unreleased, it's not part of the DCEU) But I wouldn't remove anything until we have clearly outlined the new rules. -RM (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it should be removed until some consensus is reached, and in that case, I think the info should be preserved here on the talk page anyway, for archival purposes. I'd say that I very much doubt that these inactive films have any relation to the DCEU, because of what I already said, and they would have most likely been a part of the shared universe that would have existed if Green Lantern hadn't been a failure. Even Man of Steel is unrelated to that shared universe, since it was the first in a new attempt at a shared universe, and the previous one was discarded, well, it didn't even start. And to be honest, it's also obvious that it's highly unlikely those projects will ever get out of development hell, it's been almost ten years now for one of those films. I think, that for easier reading and to improve the article, that section should be removed.Onikiri (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2011 universe (we'll just call it that for now) that never got off the ground may have been the original intended home for these inactive projects, but nothing says that they can't show up in the DCEU if and when the time is right. It does sound like the DCEU is going in a different direction, though. We could set a general guideline that states that inactive projects with no sources more recent than five years old could be considered inactive enough to not list on the page itself (Within reason... I mean, if we reach October 2019 and still haven't seen Man of Steel 2, I'd argue that the source from Oct 2014 stating that a sequel is in development is still relevant. But that's Superman, not Swamp Thing.) I agree that any removed projects should be archived on the talk page, just in case. If we set the five year rule, that would take care of all three cancelled/inactive projects, but we might want to provide specific reasoning for each.

• The script for Green Arrow: Escape from Supermax reportedly leaked online, almost eight years ago, and the site which hosts our source article no longer is displaying that article. The CW has seen success in their own Green Arrow-centric universe, so the likelihood of a Green Arrow film, especially this one, in the DCEU is next to none.
• I'd argue that the minimal information we have about a Swamp Thing movie is more relevant now to the development of Dark Universe, since that's where Swamp Thing was most recently reported to appear. The article also currently states "Warner Bros hopes to include [the Justice League Dark characters] in future DC Extended Universe titles..." so it sounds like plans to have Swamp Thing appear in a film have failed twice now, but WB is holding on to the property in case something happens eventually.
• And finally, we have a single source from five years ago stating that WB was looking to hire writers for a Hawkman movie, but no follow-up... It appears that WB never even hired a writer. Additionally, the source article we cite, itself cites "It's On The Grid," which has no information anymore about the project. I'm not really sure the project is "cancelled" if we have reason to believe it was never a project at all. WB must put out hundreds of loglines a year, looking for writers to pitch ideas about a potential film, but if we have no sources confirming that anyone ever wrote anything for a Hawkman film, I'm not sure this particular "cancelled project" even needs to stay on the talk page.

I'm all for moving GA and ST to the talk page and removing Hawkman completely, but as far as I'm aware this is unprecedented, so I'd love to have a more experienced editor take a look at this and give us a green light before we jump on it. -RM (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

TheSomeGuy97

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

@FaceOffTournament: I personally haven't been paying that much attention to his edits, aside from him italicising things that don't need to be italicised every once in a while (example: "Untitled Justice League sequel" instead of the proper "Untitled Justice League Sequel"). The user appears to be new and there is a learning curve. My personal advise is to wait for his editing to improve. If it becomes a serious issue that has a negative impact on the Wiki, then would be the time to report it. DarkKnight2149 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first few times but he blatantly changes reasonable things and persists on redoing these changes after they've been undone, even when given a perfectly reasonable reason why they've been undone. It's just getting tiring cleaning up after him, lol. FaceOffTournament (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@FaceOffTournament: I'm starting to see your point. The user is still italicising things that aren't supposed to be italicised, despite having been told not to. I left a disruptive editing warning on his Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

They also never respond or discuss any changes they have made. Check out their talk page to see the numerous and varied warnings they have received, including problems with uploaded images. I think the only way to get their attention would be to block them for a day or two. Considering they started editing in April 2016, and the amount of edits they've made, there's not really so much of an excuse for their continued disruptive behavior, imho. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Flash

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

Story and screenplay

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

A month or so ago, we removed the "story by" element from the table on the grounds that Man of Steel was then the only film with a story credit separate from the screenplay. However, given that there's new info now about WW and Aquaman, it seems we should add it back. My thought was to add a story by column (and in the case of BvS, SS, and other films where there is simply a writing credit, merge the cells in those columns). However, that adds a seventh column to the table, which might make it difficult to read, especially on smaller screens. I was thinking we could remove the producers column and make a separate table for producers, because while writers and directors would be expected to change with every film, producers have been shown to work on several films in a row, with producers added or removed after several years and/or promoted or demoted to or from an EP position instead. It might be better to show producers this way, but keep the writers and directors in the existing table. Thoughts? -RM (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rmaynardjr: I like that idea. but we could also add under the Writer(s) column: Story by xxx, Screenplay by xxxxPhoenix (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarkoPhoenix: I think that having distinct columns adds a bit of uniformity, whereas a single writers column would require some films to have Story by xxx, Screenplay by xxxx listed and others would simply require a name. I think if we separate them, and merge when appropriate, it makes a bit more sense. Just my opinion, though. -RM (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I still think that the screenwriter is ultimately the most pertinent in regards to the table. Those responsible for the story treatment will be credited on the respective film's own page anyway, right? I just don't think we should change the table for only two movies. If it were more common, sure. Also, what about the films that don't officially credit the person(s) responsible for the story treatment? For example, Allan Heinberg and Zack Snyder came up with the story for Wonder Woman according to reports and Patty Jenkins herself mentioned herself being locked in the writers room with them to figure out the story for the movie. Do you think all of them will get a story credit? Will James Wan and Geoff Johns get an official story credit for Aquaman either? It's a tricky thing so I vote we keep doing it the way we've been doing. FaceOffTournament (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)