Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Quote in the lead and other issues

The film's North American and international box office openings set new records followed by a historic box office decline in its second weekend, "viewed as a disappointment because it will only make $850-$900 million worldwide."

Aside from being a long-winded statement, the quote is unnecessary, especially for the lead. It is more accurate to clarify that this is an expectation, which can be more simply stated as, "expected to earn less than $900 million worldwide". This conveys the same premise in fewer words.

The film received a generally negative reception from the consensus of critics.

This is about as clumsy as it gets. It sounds as harsh as a double-negative to say something "received reception", which is what you are essentially saying when you remove the adjectives. In fewer words and with better grammar, this should read along the lines of: "It received generally negative reviews from critics."

@Ghriscore: I see we're back at this again, and for a second time, it is me that initiated the discussion. Instead of taking it to the talk page for explanation, you choose to solely rely on edit summaries (diff1, diff2) or no summary at all (diff3). This is verging on WP:OWN and edit-warring behavior, and is counter-productive to the goal of improving the article. Instead of hurling unexplained allegations in the edit summary, you should take the time to elaborate on this talk page, especially when you know the other editor involved is willing to discuss. The sky isn't falling. I look forward to your in-depth explanations of why these minor changes weren't improvements to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm giving you the quick and dirty because, you are right, I do NOT own this article (lol). JUST TO BE CLEAR: you are being TOO sensitive. Suggesting some of your changes were "too POV" is hardly hostile (read below for my reasoning). And please have good faith, as you requested of me a while back. It's absurd to suggest WP:OWN or edit warring allegations, even if hinted at, since that's been the problem with these kind of articles-- a flaw of wiki, is that these kinda things become diluted by the lowest common denominator and, thus, give wiki the sometimes deserved reputation it gets. So keep that in mind. I have no agenda as you can see from my edits I often revert those attacking this film as well.

As for the rest, I've been working CLOSELY with several editors publicly and privately on this page and elsewhere, on this part in particular, so I can ping them if you'd like so you don't think I'm engaging in an unilateral agenda here. I am not. So this is not without empathy toward others. It comes down to this:

A summary should be about what was most notable, easy to digest, about a story, right? Like a byline...

Well...there are THREE notable points I can see thus far that WE SHOULD report on if we are to honor the journalistic spirit of wiki. What was 'notable' about this tentpole film was/is that (1) the short-term success based upon the records it broke in its opening weekend, (2) the long-term disappointment it is experiencing as it decline remarkably in its following weekends and (3) the critical panning it received. Those are all very note worthy and are more than neutrally represented in the media and elsewhere. So help me out here, will ya? Because the truth is, it is not easy to make everyone happy while staying true to integrity.

One point #3: If you re-read MOS:FILM it is very good at explaining the need for neutrality and balance EXCEPT when doing so might come at the expense of note worthy news, like for instance, when a film bombs or is critically panned. It says in those cases that "it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Well....there really isn't a debate in the media right now about the critical reception for B v S. Everyone for the most part acknowledges the reality that this film received a very negative reception and that the reception was SO negative that it was a significant part of the story when reporting on this film. So that must stay in. If you can find a "less clumsy" way to word it, then propose it here and I'm more that receptive to that. However, if you want to be fair, saying things like "despite negative reception this film was a smash hit" and other things like that is an attempt to water down the actual reporting on this film by the press and synthesize that fact about this movie which is what I'm against. No offense, but you DID stand by that choice and it is hard NOT to see that as a form an apologist stance. The box office has NOTHING to do with the note worthy news that a film was panned by the critics. And trying to explain how one might affect another in the top...I mean, talk about clumsy! If you really want a simple article, and I believe you do (again, back to good faith) then there is nothing wrong mentioning what is a widely accepted perception at this point: that this film was panned by the critics. But trying to respect the feelings of others, I chose words that may be clumsy but are as neutral as possible. I'm all for trying out different things. SO...maybe I will try something here and see if you like it. But it's not our job to water this down, balance it out, or neutralize it at the expense of what is news worthy about it. And, no, I'm not accusing you of that. Again, I repeat, I am having good faith that THIS was/is not your intent. However, the difficulty rests with reporting on this in a way that isn't biased. So, for the moment, it may be clumsy but it is neutral.

If someone came here to learn about B v S and knew NOTHING about it...it would be wrong to censor the news that the community of critics were mostly together on one thing about this film.....generally speaking, most of them were disappointed in it and it was news worthy. It became part of this story. So, I don't want to deny the readers that notable piece of info because some editors have a philosophical problem about the nature of film journalism, criticism, and what constitutes a negative review. MOS:FilM, again, states that "it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Fine then. So it would be lying to say this film was NOT negatively received and that the film's negative reception by critics wasn't a BIG PART of the story about it.

One point #1: This film made A LOT of money very quickly in its first weekend, which is unusual for any film, period. But it did and deserves mentioning, since that was very news worthy. Which brings me to...

Point #2: That part of the evolving story about this is how a film's long term success can affect or change the story about a film's short term success. A film's box office in its second weekend is almost becoming more important than its opening weekend and is a story nicely addressed by wiki's articles on second weekend box offices. Here we have a film where the first weekend was huge and the second weekend had a "historical" decline. However, its not our place to philosophize about it here or analyze it. So I reported on it. And then another editor put in a nice DIRECT quote which elaborated on it, giving us context about what constitutes "a disappointing" film without using original research or personal analysis to do so. Which leads me to....

THE ISSUE I have with your proposal. I'm all for keeping this simple. However, being overly reductive and simplistic should NOT be at the expense of what is news worthy. Simply stating that this film will not clear $900 million does NOTHING to inform our readers. It means, what exactly, other than to an expert in this who can read between the lines? However, I would NOT agree to labeling this film a disappointment without proper citation. That would be a weasel word way of allowing bias into this. However, it is accurate to say that the "perception of this film by the film industry is that it is a disappointment because of X" or "the film is being viewed as disappointment because of Y". It points the reader back to the press and the industry, which we are objectively reporting on. On this, I can experiment with ways of distilling this but some may accuse me of being too hard on the film, which brings to....

ANOTHER ISSUE with all of this....the reality of this all: It's simply problematic doing wikis on these things because emotions are SO high for all involved. Trust me, it is ridiculous that I and others have to include 5 or more citations per sentence to deter POV trolling. But suggesting that watering down an article for the tastes of the lowest common demoninator is ALL too common on wikipedia. Many articles on big tent pole films on wiki are heavily censored and inaccurate due to this fanboy fundamentalism. Again, not accusing YOU or that, but this anti-intellectualism is really a shame because it makes wikipedia in many cases a corporate mouthpiece for their films or worse a watered down version of what Harry Knowles or IMDB does too often: turning this sorta thing into a kind of religion. Ironically, I actually dug this film. But I'm a fan of good journalism more. In other words, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good... Just to be clear...

DON'T MAKE THE PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD...sorry, for that blunt hammer on the nail approach here. But I really am doing my best here, as are you and many others. But FFS, it can get silly around here some times. To be clear: I can make this response a lot more technical and include ALL the wikipedia policy, names of editors, necessary quotes on wiki-policy if you force my hand. But I'd rather not. I think we both have enough maturity to see that if really care about good journalism and an ethical wikipedia, then we can have enough good faith between us both and NOT get involved in the kind of wiki lawyering that makes this place a drag. In other words, this is long enough a response without me having to be wonky about it. So...for now, I refer you to...

WP:UNDUE, MOS:FILM, and WP:Synthesize...which are guiding me here. Also, there is the simple but often used False equivalence logical fallacy that is used WAY to often in debates like this. The violation that fallacy commits is that, contrary to popular beliefs, there are not TWO SIDES to every debate. In other words, just because some people don't believe in global warming, a round earth, that B v S didn't get bad reviews does not mean we owe them equal time and weight in a debate where empiricism suggests otherwise. So....if we REALLY want to keep it simple, then...

WP:UNDUE tells us everything we need to know. To quote that policy almost verbatim, back to our flat earth example, an article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Likewise, we don't owe undue weight to a very small minority in the press and culture who thinks Batman v Superman-Dawn of Justice was some kind of artistic triumph or financial hit when the truth is that the consensus in the press and our culture is pretty clear about this right now- i.e. it might not be a bomb, but it is seen as a financial disappointment in the industry and was a critical disappointment. So...

HERE IS WHAT I PROPOSE...maybe this all comes down to finessing and semantics. Unless you can show us some solid proof in the way of press consensus that the negative reception by critics is (A) not true or (B) was not news worthy or that the press and the film industry are NOT viewing this as a financial disappointment THEN maybe this just about wording. Fair enough... so can we play around with different approaches here? I'm confident we can do that WITHOUT censoring essential reporting on this story that are better left in, clumsy as they are, then left out all together which denies the reader valuable information....So....

Does that work for you, mate? Await your response here. P.S. In the meanwhile, excuse the sloppiness of my reply. If necessary, I can respond again with a more technical sounding response but given that this isn't our first rodeo I'm hoping we can assume enough good faith and read between the lines here. ALSO...I will attempt/experiment with some changes to see if I can address with what I think your concern is here WHILST respecting the work of ALL editors.

P.P.S. If we CAN'T figure this out here, in short order, then lets move this discussion (for now) to the our talk pages so we don't spam this page. Please respond there (or my page, if you must). Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion about improving the article, which is more appropriate for the article's talk page. While you are directly involved, we should welcome the feedback of other editors that may be willing to lend an opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'll be honest here. I only skimmed through the wall of text above, but from what I gathered, you are reading way too much between the lines. The proposals I've made are clearly stated above. If you notice, I did not suggest changing or removing the word "negative". I strongly suggest you re-read my post, as I think much of your response is tailored to all the vandalism and "fanboy" drama you've been contending with over the past few weeks. I was not a part of that.

You did make a fair point about how stating that the film "is expected to earn less than $900 million worldwide" doesn't put that into proper context of why it's an important detail. However, what that proper context actually is may be debatable. If you re-read the Forbes source in its entirety, I think you will find that it is not agreeing with the view that the film's earning is a "disappointment". It is acknowledging the view that some have labeled it as such, but then it lays out the facts about other superhero films that were released before it. The author demonstrates how $800 million or more well exceeds some of the earlier "successful" hits. To cherry-pick that quote from the source doesn't do it justice. Either we remove it altogether, or we properly summarize what the source is saying. I don't think a quote from the source is necessary in the lead, but if you'd really like to retain one, I'm sure we can find a place for it in the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No prob, mate. Like I said, a lot was covered but I encourage you to read all of that for proper justification for the edits. HOWEVER, as far whether or not this film is a disappointment on some level is actually not debatable. Just because a film is a disappointment doesn't mean it was not profitable or a box office bomb. This was a tentpole film for DC and whether we like it or not, the film probably had to clear some where around $1 billion dollars at least to be considered a big hit for these guys. That said, it would be wrong for us to suggest this film was a flop. But there are plenty of sources that acknowledge the disappointing returns of this film starting with the terrible second weekend decline in its second weekend, the fact that it fell from 1st place in it 3rd weekend (it was expected to dominate the entire month, not just two weeks) and the fact that is continues to fall terribly in the following weeks. The phrase for this is that film "doesn't have legs." Yes, it was minor profitable film but the only people spinning this right now is Warner Bros., which is expected. The consensus in the press, for the moment, that this film was a disappointment. I don't mind restoring some content and figures to the opening summary to clarify in what way it was a disappointment. So I kind of agree with you. But then I don't want to be accused of bloating this article again. I do agree with you that we certainly don't want people to think that this film was a box office office disappointment. But it becomes a case of POV vandalism if I start to say things like "but it was still profitable" and other nonsense since our job is not to help spin or apologize for it. This movie is not notable for being a minor financial success. It is notable for failing to live up to expectations. Again, we report on what's notable and directly veritable. Not speculative. Again, for the record, I am NOT lecturing you and I am assuming good faith here. Please believe that. I'm just confident in my position here. But for now, I think the best way out of this is to use direct quotes when possible and to record (here) the consensus in the press. If you can show us that for every source calling this a disappointment there is a source showing that this film is actually a hit or something like that then we should acknowledge that. Let me try a few things out and let me know here what you think. Fair enough? Ghriscore (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I think the proposals should be posted and discussed here instead of the article. This is not a case of "I bring the concern to the talk page", you approve or disapprove, and then you make suggestions through edits in the article. I should have the same privilege without the threat of being reverted. Since we've already reached a point of disagreement, it's best to build a consensus here first which keeps us on level ground.

Secondly, the opinion I gave in the last post wasn't mine; it came straight from the cited Forbes source. If you disagree with it, then don't use it to support the "disappointment" claim. That's misleading. While there may be plenty of sources that do support it, how do we know if those outnumber the sources that don't support it? Is there a source that has performed the research for us which shows that a majority of experts feel it is a "disappointment"? We can't do that research ourselves, otherwise it can be labeled original research. This is the same kind of issue we run into with negative vs. mixed vs. positive reviews; there are usually plenty of each, but we rely on review aggregators to do that research for us. When dealing with opinions about the film's box office performance, we would need a reliable source that sums up the consensus of expert opinion for us. Same deal as with reviews. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see three citations, at least, with a simple google search that directly call this film "a disappointment" and do so clearly because the film will fail to make $1 billion dollars. The analysis was offered, the quotes are clear, and the press has and is continuing to carry this story. Yes, I can also see stories saying this film will turn a profit AND broke some opening records. But none of these sources, as far as I can tell, are debating or refuting the notion that this film IS or WAS NOT a disappointment. So, no, I'm not cool with engaging in any kind of WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:UNDUE to make the case you are proposing.

And, no, I am not suggesting that you have to clear it with me or get my permission to make edits.(lol) However, there is no reason to leave something out that is directly notable and directly newsworthy in a quotable sense (or offer vague indirect sources or counter-apologist arguments) simply because someone here has a problem with how the article reads. Again, back to WP:UNDUE, articles on the disappointing long-term box office for this film doesn't directly mention support for minor profit this film was making as a counterpoint to that, which would mean us having to synthesize the view of a distinct minority to balance that view out; to do so would give undue weight to it. I am all for working together but all I'm doing is trying to keep notable information that is valuable and appropriate in the present. That doesn't require my permission. It just means I'm protecting the page, along with others, from POV edits that censor that neutral, factual content. This is also why I am directly quoting it, to avoid the appearance and reality of WP:OR. It is stated quite clearly there in at least two sources. I will add more if you like. CheersGhriscore (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You are making this TOO complicated. All I want to do is report THE FACT that this film is "being PERCEIVED as a disappointment". Now, whether or not it ACTUALLY is a disappointment is a different debate entirely. But that difference makes all the difference in the world. And that perception here is not only notable but newsworthy and that is the story the press is carrying by consensus....I can use that language, if that will clear this up for you....

SO aI am not entirely sure we DO disagree. in fact, I offered a further refinement that addresses your concerns while including the info you wanted and the respecting the logic you are using. Bare in mind, the edits I am protecting are not unilateral. They are the work and consent of many. Using the "edit by consensus" approach as a stalling strategy to keep valuable information off the page which really is not being debated in the press is a wiki:lawyering tactic, and not necessary here. If you want to go to mediation, so be it. If you succeed in watering this article down for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator here, then that's sad but typical of our anti-intellectual culture. But my opinion of this, and the spirit of wikipedia, is to provide the reader with the facts, the sources, the analysis, and then let the readers decide. For the moment, everything included here is directed attributed to proper citation, directly quotable, reflects the consensus in the press, and the work of many. Not sure what else I have to offer. If you want to include something MORE to the content, then please do so. But it shouldn't have to come at the expense of what is notable and verifiable about this story and we shouldn't allow it to synthesize ANY content in favor one point of view or another. Do with that what you will, it's not a victory I would be proud of if someone here succeeded at censoring valuable information on this story because they carefully used corporate propaganda in a handful of shilled articles as a way of covering up the consensus in the press. Again, I have good faith you are not doing that, but you would be hard-pressed to find something in the press suggesting there is a big debate about whether or not this film is being "perceived as a disappointment" or is a huge hit. Again, whether or not it is a disappointment is another debate entirely. But that difference is everything here. That saying, the victors get to write the history books? -is informative here regardless of what a wikipedia articles says about it (ie. they are NOT the history books,lol).My 2 cents.Ghriscore (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We won't have any issues if you clearly define your concerns in the future. Citing POV, UNDUE, and other policies in your edit summaries is usually unclear and unhelpful, especially when the policies you're citing don't apply to either the edit or the editor you're calling out. Here, it was made clear that one of the refs did not support the "disappointment" claim, and it needs to be summarized accurately or removed altogether. Accuracy is important in any article, and I don't see how it has the effect of "watering this article down". Also, none of the proposals I made violate the policies you mention, so there's no need to write paragraphs upon paragraphs about how "others" might be violating them. I can only imagine how much of a nightmare this must be for anyone attempting to follow this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, the nightmare has been the multi-front war from all sides on this and the attempt to address ALL people. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Trust me, I'd like to keep this simple mate but I wasn't only speaking to you. Glad to see we are getting some where though.Ghriscore (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment

TL:DR. Skimmed this. I think you both have a point. If we cut down on the wordiness, we can salvage this IMHO, everyone gets what they want. Ain't rocket science.Plateofnachos (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I made this change to reduce the length of a sentence and slightly improve its grammar. I also removed the "profit" bit, as I don't believe that's necessary at this time. If anyone has any issues with these changes, please state them here. This may seem like a tedious and unnecessary process, but the sooner we can come to an agreement, the easier it will be to keep the wording intact and protected from drive-by vandals. For editors who modify it later, we can direct them to this thread should any of their changes be major enough to warrant additional discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Good changes that are neutral, sourced and reflect all contributions. Let's work with this. Glad to see we worked this out, more or less. CheersGhriscore (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot: Diana Prince as an antiques dealer?

The plot describes Diana Prince as an antiques dealer. Shouldn't that be antiquities dealer? Antiquity is defined as "the ancient past, especially the period before the Middle Ages." A sword Alexander used to cut the Gordian not would better fit that definition. An antique would be a painting from the 40's, a old dress, furniture, something you take to a reality show on PBS and found out it's worth a couple hundred dollars. Probably not something priceless you find in a museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.249.194 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Budget

The info box claims $200M, but amusingly if one bothers to actually read the source the wording is: " which has a budget said to be well more than $200 million." Either put a "+" after 200 or don't use it. And this is in addition to the fact that WB is almost certainly following their usual MO of shifting some of the costs onto other films to hide the true number from investors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, shouldn't the budget include marketing cost, since that 150 million dollars for it contributed to the movie. Even if it's not for making it directly, it still cuts a (relatively) significant part of their profits. --99.245.28.74 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Does the budget section require an update?

• • Per the consensus reached at the infobox template page, I have edited the box to reflect both the net production cost and the gross budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The official cost of this film after reshoots and before tax rebates is $325 million.

References

Box Office Analysis

In an attempt to avoid edit warring

Please familiarize yourself with MOS:Film/Box_office: It says "Determine a consensus from OBJECTIVE(retrospective if possible)SOURCES about how a film performed and why." It does NOT say that "ONLY the company who made it(ie.Warner Bros.) gets to make that call", which is the absurd notion that editor Bignole is asserting. For expensive tentpole films like this, especially this one, the industry and the media have provided clear analysis that this film will not and needs to clear one billion dollars not to be considered a disappointment. Also, the media is making this call. According to MOS:Film/Box Office-The movie doesn't have to be out of theaters for us to comment on its performance, only if it helps. In this case, it's historic and massive drop offs in the following weekends followed by its failure to come close to a 1 billion dollars has led to many many MANY objective news sites to comment on it's disappointing box office take. They concede it will turn a small profit but point out that everyone was looking for this to be a big hit, which is why it is considered a disappointment even if not a bomb.Let's assume good faith and be civil, and respect everyone's contributions,even my meager one. As far as what the sources say about this thus far, I just commented on the present story as it is developing., as in: I used recent sources that also speak about how the film is doing now.If that's all that is offending anyone here, I can include more sources as well. No need for anyone here to unilaterally delete my contributions when they are well sourced. No one should engage in a WP:OWN violation as some to continue to disrespectfully do so and ignore my contribution like that. Suggestion: If this is coming down to semantics or proper wording to accurately reflect what the sources are saying, I'm sure we can finesse it here. However, that doesn't mean leaving out this contribution all together until that happens. It's newsworthy, notable and directly quotable, supported by other editors as far as I can see, Many other wikipedia articles have made similar calls around this time, even earlier, like Ang Lee's The Hulk or Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes and have not experienced such absurd edit warring. I suggest looking at the edit history of those pages for quittance on civil discourse over this. This page is no different.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot claim that a film is a box office disappointment before it has finished it's box office run. It's only halfway through the run, yet you are quoting sources that called it a disappointment after 2 weeks. That's UNDUE weight. Not to mention, it's undue weight to put it in the lead of the article, which summarizes the entirety of the article. There is discussion about how it isn't a disappointment, but you are picking a particular quote and running with it in the lead. That is UNDUE, plain and simple.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. You are also being disingenuous and swapping rationales to justify a WP:OWN violation and your own version of WP:UNDUE. You said, and I quote, "First, it's still in the theater, and second only Warner Bros. can say it was a disappointment)." Saying that only Warner Brothers gets to make this call and letting them be the sole voice on this WOULD BE an example of WP:UNDUE, because why should the 'opinion' (read: biased) of the company who made this be given more weight (or the most weight) out of everyone analysis the box office of this business venture? Absurd.

Also, as far as waiting for this film to leave theaters, according to MOS:Film/Box Office-The movie doesn't have to be out of theaters for us to comment on its performance, only if it helps. In this case, its historic and massive drop offs in the following weekends followed by its failure to come close to a 1 billion dollars has led to many many MANY objective news sites to comment on its disappointing box office take. I agree that one source should not be sourced above all else. I can see six sources, right now, when I google for a few seconds that make this case and offer similar analysis. They conclude that the industry and the culture (A) see this as disappointment because (B) it failed to live up to expectations and (C) will fail to clear at least 1 billion dollars because (D) as it is waning and trending right now it will be nearly impossible for it do so. I can include more of these sources if you like. But the notable story on this wasn't/isn't that Warner Brothers had a minor (or at best) a modest profit with this movie. This was their big moment, a tentpole film, that was supposed to be their first attempt at an extended comic book universe and carried with it high expectations. So far, it has been a critical and commercial letdown even if not an outright box office bomb.

So PLEASE DO NOT put words in my mouth. I am careful not to suggest or imply that this film is a box office bomb. If I need to say so in the edits themselves, then will include that information for the purpose of consensus here. There is no reason to leave out notable news about this movie.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, if needs to be said again, I agree that directly quoting one source at this point could give the perception of WP:UNDUE. We can safely unquote this since many, many MANY sources are calling this film "disappointing"..."a letdown at the box office"...."a failure to live up to expectations" etc. I chose the word "disappointment" since it is neutral, commonly used in articles like this and nPOV, and directly quotable by most if not all the sources on this. At this point the sentiment is being carried by box office analysts and the press alike, not just one source, as it has been alleged. It is also true that some mention the fact that this film has/will turn a profit, even if that is not considered as big a deal here as its failure to live up to high expectations. Never the less, I agree it is important to include here to avoid misunderstanding and to present this in a balanced way.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not swap any rationale. I still say that a random reviewer cannot comment on the box office performance of a film still in theaters. There is a difference between commenting on drops in box office from weekend to weekend, and directly quoting someone saying that it is a disappointment because it did not make between 850 - 900 million, when it is STILL in the theaters and sitting at 836 million, with at least 4 more weeks of box office to go. THAT is undue weight my friend. You're placing significance on an opinion based on a lack of actual evidence. The MOS discusses talking about box office performance before it is finished its run when you're talking about week to week drops. Not when you're talking entire box office take that can easily make it to that $850-900 million figure by the time it is actually done.

Secondly, it still isn't appropriate for the lead. LEADS are not meant to house tons of quotes from people. It's for summarizing, and summarizing the opinion of a couple is not for the LEAD, not when you're not giving sufficient place for the people that disagree with those sentiments.

What words did I put in your mouth? If you're referring to my statement of "You cannot...", then I would remind you that it's called a "universal you". It isn't directed at any particular person.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not painting this as a box office bomb or disappointment, as you alleged, implied or otherwise. And you made a WP:UNDUE allegation without good faith whilst committing this violation yourself when you gave UNDUE weight to Warners Brothers as the only source you will consider in this. Look, maybe this is a misunderstanding. All your concerns have been addressed since then. I agree we shouldn't quote one source. I just included an excellent article by Flavorwire http://flavorwire.com/570473/warner-brothers-has-taken-exactly-the-wrong-message-from-the-box-office-disappointment-of-batman-v-superman They did a multi-source analysis of this and they certainly did NOT make this call lightly. Also, I was sensitive to your concerns and mentioned how this film will turn a profit, to balance the edit and provide proper context. Just do us all a favor, have good faith and don't be so controlling about the edits here. I noticed you practically own the PLOT section here and I'm not sure that is fair to everyone involved. As for this meager contribution of mine, it is directly quotable, supported by many sources, includes a proper context and info that balances out the source while avoiding a WP:SYNTHESIZE violation. If you want to add to it, I'm all ears. I'm just against your unilateral deletion of it.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, as far as your concern for etiquette for the TOP or SUMMARY of an article, I just verified privately with another admin~mod that THE TOP "summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. And list the best-known achievements of the subject." For the moment, he/she didn't see the problem of including this and said it is common for a big story like this to include notable newsworthy points on the top. To paraphrase them: for a film, (1)box office, (2) critical consensus, if the film was a big hit or panned, and (3) cultural impact or significance, can and should be included in the top or summary if it is newsworthy and notable. He/she are willing to come here and explain this policy to everyone involved if it becomes necessary. Thank you for the feedback, Bignole.Happy editing everyone.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

TL:DC i don't want to get involved in your lovers spat :^p but I don't see anything wrong with this piece o'info. it's presented in a balanced way. it's too politically correct for my tastes but whateva. it is accurate though, so I shouldn't carp. it is only talking about how the superhero flick was perceived as disappointment and offers a reasonable explanation for this conclusion. it seems this is all everyone is talking about, hoping Cap v Ironman will do better. so i'm down with it. i agree with the logic that as long as we don't call this a bomb or judge it too harshly, it is benign enough. if the perception changes down the road, just change it then. no one is singing this film's praises right now. everyone is calling it a letdown. the mic...drops...now. :^) catch y'all on the flip.Plateofnachos (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Update

I'd like to revisit this. We have a statement in the lead that says the film is a disappointment because it did not make between 850 and 900 million, yet it is currently sitting at 863 million. When all is said and done it will likely be at 870, which is in the range that the one source says would make it NOT a disappointment. This has been my issue from the state that this source was making a statement based on a projection the film would not reach...but the film DID reach it. Thus, it makes the statement null.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Actually, the statement is saying that making anywhere from $850 to $900 million is "less-than-expected" and thus considered a disappointment. It's still in that range, so the statement still applies. If we check the cited sources, two of the three basically say that anything under $1 billion will be reported as a disappointment. I think the closer it gets to that mark, however, we may start to see sources softening their stance, but until then, there's not much justification to change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem. The first source linked to it doesn't say anything to that effect. It calls it a disappointment, but doesn't attach a figure to it. The second source doesn't actually say it is a disappointment, but states that "And now Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is being viewed as a disappointment because it will only make $850-$900 million worldwide." If you read the article, what the author is actually doing is dissecting the idea of "a big hit" and commenting on the idea that it is subjective. If anything, the most that should be in the lead is a statement of, "It has been viewed as a disappointment for not bringing in more at the box office." You're taking a specific statement from one person and attributing it to others who have called it a disappointment period without attaching figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, very true. In fact, I argued the same thing in an earlier thread with another editor about that second source. It's actually somewhat sympathetic to that view as you've accurately described. I didn't want to argue it any further, however, so I've been keeping it in place for now. I wasn't the editor that originally put it there, just so that's clear.

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, most estimates do agree that $800 million is close to the "break-even" point for the film. So even if it reaches $900 million, that means it only profited a mere $50 million or so at the box office. $50 million sounds like a lot, but when your investment is well over $300 million, it really isn't all that much, especially in the sense that this is supposed to help green-light a DC cinematic franchise for years to come. So it is understandable that some (or many) would view this as a disappointment for not crossing the $1 billion mark.

Back into my objective stance, I will not get in the way of its removal if others believe it should be removed. However, knowing that at least one other editor (Ghriscore) supports the statement, others are probably going to have to weigh in before we reach any sort of consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell, even one of the sources cannot even count. It says "Budget 250 million and marketing 150 million....that's half a billion, it will need to double that to be seen a profitable". Um, last time I checked, 250 + 150 = 400, which would make double 800 million, and thus "profitable" by the "double it to be.." statement. LOL. Either way, if it absolutely should stay it should be rewritten, because right now it's a bit of synthesis, but taking a figure out of context from one article and applying it to statements from other articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, hard to tell if that source was just speaking figuratively about "half a billion" in relation to the $400 million total. The math is wrong if they were trying to be exact, but at least the budget numbers are correct. Originally, the lead used a quote from the second source (Forbes) which stated the film "is being viewed as a disappointment because it will only make $850-$900 million worldwide". Perhaps we can just rephrase that and take out the "less-than-expected" part which was added later when the quote was removed. Either that, or we can move it to the body. I'm not sure why this range needs to be in the lead at all, especially when it's not currently in the body. Ghriscore was pinged above. If he doesn't weigh in soon, I say we move forward in trying to resolve this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the other part. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body, but that's pretty much only in the lead. I'm not disputing the idea that the film was expected to make more money, but I think the quote is being taken out of context to support a fact, instead of an opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Totally agree. As for the fact vs. opinion concern, I think the phrase "it has been seen" clearly implies that this is a viewpoint, or opinion, and not a fact. However, before we delve too deep into that debate, let's wait and see if this statement will even remain in the lead, let alone the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion with a sock puppet

(A) Both the flavorwire source, the variety source (which adds context) and the 850-900 million make it clear that the film is "a disappointment" because it falls INTO that range. (B) You are changing your rational from (A). The other citations directly call this "a box office disappointment." So, if you like, we can just drop the 850-900 language and just stick with the neutral language "a box office disappointment for failing to live up to high standards" etc. Clearly this belongs in the body. I thought it was mentioned more or less by the box office statements where it was clear that analysts criticized the box office for failing to "have legs" and failing to crack a billion. I and others can make it MORE specific. Since then, more sources are emerging -- mostly because the Marvel: Civil War debate is helping to distill this -- that B v S is a disappointment though it more or less broke even, maybe even turn a small though not notable profit. Add to that, this was a critical failure and the divided fanbase and whether we like it or not, the press has pretty much already called this what it was: a disappointment. Not a failure. Not a flop. But not a hit, hence "disappointment." Not sure what more needs to be discussed. The interpretation so far in this 'update' seems to be: how can we get away with a WIKI:OR violation if we play a WP:UNDUE violation card by using original research to make the numbers and analysis say something here that is NOT really being said in the press, nor in the industry. Forgive the snark, however what began this debate was a confession that "only WB can make this kinda call" which is confessing to a WP:UNDUE violation which, ironically, was the justification for attacking another source as WP:UNDUE. As it stands, I can now safely say there are about 10:1 sources saying this is "a box office and critical disappointment." This isn't football whereby if this movie cracks $900 million, suddenly we call this a hit...just be cuz. So we don't confuse the reader, we can change the semantics to reflect that is underperformed for a tentpole film for failing to make 1 billion dollars or whatever language is necessary to accurately reflect what the press or the industry was thinking. Our will or opinion means squat here. CheersGhriscore (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.As for the rest, WE are not box office analysts. Trying to weigh-in as arm chair analysts here is offensive: ie. dissecting what it means for a film to be a hit or not based on whether it falls into this range or that range OR fails to make a billion dollars. That is NOT our job here. Mentioning "seen as" or "viewed as" I agree is a duh statement because ANY analysis or the critical or box office success of most films is someone's opinion in some sense or another. We report. We don't offer our analysis, period. When I am offering reasons here, I am offering the reasoning of the press, not my own. That's the difference. And, sure, I can find a source right now that says "B v S was profitable" or something weasel-like in that vein. However...careful investigation will empirically find that this is a minority view. The major sources have already weighed in on this. It was a disappointment. Not a flop, not a bomb. But it failed to live up to expectations. Just because that creates shades of gray that create confusion here doesn't mean we should exploit it to our own end: where we can WIKI:LAWYER our OWN pov into this or worse, hope that 'said confusion' will hide our personal interpretations. In the spirit of good faith, all I can offer is some of you are terribly confused. I will offer some more neutral language, see if it helps to address the egos and politically-incorrect nature of some of this. But this isn't rocket science folks. WB had high hopes for this film. You going to honestly tell me that the press and the industry is singing this film's praises??? Whether this film actually IS a hit or WAS a good movie is a different debate entirely. That's the line we cross. Food for thought.Ghriscore (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. I went ahead with a change. I offered a rewrite, and more neutral wording. Lead is now drastically changed, neutralized. Body now includes something per request. Let me apologize in address to the original contributor(s) on this. Not sure if the original contributor/editor will balk at this, since it wasn't MY contribution to begin with. If he/she has an issue with it, then...oh well. For the record, I did NOT disagree with your contribution and I could readily accept the 850-900 rationale, though it needed some refinement for sure. But I went ahead with the change anyways since everyone here is entitled to their opinion and right to contribute. Personally, I think this reads better and addresses all concerns. But if the original contributor is like, "Hell no", then blame me. Good night peeps.Ghriscore (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC) ......The change is fine. That said, for the umpteenth time: there is no real debate over whether or not this film was a disappointment. The only debate is whether or not it is fair that the industry and our culture has such high expectations for these global super blockbusters. Fanboys and haters will always debate these things, I suppose, on messageboards. So there's that. But there is near unanimous agreement in the press circle and among industry analysts that this flick was a disappointment never-the-less. People are making too much of the fact that the movie broke even and made a small profit. It's not notable enough to justify censoring notable history of an event. ......Just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind I ran this by another veteran editor/moderator. He even helped me with the wording in the lead. I invited him here to explain this to everyone. He said he will if an edit war breaks out. Also, he brought to my attention that this is a growing problem with film articles; how valuable news is censored or spun to satisfy corporate propaganda or anti-intellectual concerns. To paraphrase him, the lead is where we summarize notable developments. The notable developments in the history of this story:(1) This is WB's first extended universe film, (2) The first official Batman meets Superman film. (3) Wonder woman, duh (4) The critical panning, and (5) it's disappointing box office returns for failing to meet reasonably high expectations for this big investment by Warner Brothers. Many movies make a profit but are considered a disappointment, like Edward Norton's Incredible Hulk. For instance, The Hulk and Spidey are Marvel's big tentpole characters. Star Wars is a big tentpole film. Batman and Superman are big tentpole properties. When they fail to do stellar business, they are considered a disappointment for that very reason. The analysis on this is simple and clear and well-documented. However you want to include this, or word this, I don't care. As it stands now, I hate it because it is watered down in my opinion, but it is still getting the information across so I can live with it. It would be irresponsible to leave it out all together because of a philosophical disagreement on this. That's all I got.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC) I haven't had a chance to look over the comments recently added here, as it's a "wall of text". Both of you should try to be more concise in your responses. That said, I have reverted the lead to its prior form when this discussion started. We should wait for an agreement here before messing with it in the article. Let's give Bignole and others a chance to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC) If we are going to leave it alone, there should be nothing wrong using the more neutral wording for now unless you're partial to the more strongly worded edit. That was meant as a compromise for you two. If you dont like it,then offer a tweak of your own. This is not a debate about whether something notable should be censored or not. There are limits to consensus, don't worry...I asked. Please offer YOUR own version of this then. No sarcasm. How would you like to word this, and we will go with your version then? I'm all earsGhriscore (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC) That is not how dispute resolution works. The statement in the article was previously formed through a consensus in an earlier discussion, where it has remained in place for some time. You should carefully look over WP:STATUSQUO to see how these type of situations typically play out. When there is an active discussion, propose your changes here as opposed to the article and leave the status quo intact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC) The problem is I am not sure what the dispute is, or that there really is one. Not to mention that the faux resolution process here, with film articles like this, flirt with a Wiki lawyering violation (i.e. gaming the system) to advance a WP:OR violation. The consensus here before more or less was to keep this contribution. But wiki articles are living documents, so now it is time to nuance and update it. If it magically makes more than a billion dollars, then someone will probably report this in the press and we change or delete the contribution. But we don't change it because the film suddenly makes a dollar over 900 million and we then decide through personal analysis and WP:OR that this means the press was wrong and we were right. Also, I'm sure the 900 million and billion cap was an attempt to round this off. The context is clear: it needed to make a big profit. Not a modest one. If it changes in the press, then we should change it. So if this is a dispute, it is one over semantics. Not a dispute over whether or not it is a valid perception by the press and industry at large. So it should be a dispute over wording, not whether we keep this or not as that was more or less decided. Otherwise you succeed, at worst, of getting away with a violation of the spirit of a wiki. That's not a victory I'd be proud of. Later.Ghriscore (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC) The dispute in question is whether or not to keep the statement, and if kept, how to rephrase it. At least one editor disagrees with you at this point and stated that it's a possible violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend, but I don't know how to state it more simply than this: When there is a dispute (whether or not you understand the dispute), avoid edit-warring, discuss on the talk page, or use a different form of dispute resolution. This advice is at the very core of Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. I notice that you've been blocked before in the past for an edit after repeated warnings. If you don't fully understand how dispute resolution works, then feel free to carry this over to a sidebar conversation on my talk page, or seek help/advice at one of the many Help forums. If you continue to be disruptive here, your actions may be reported. I'll ping Bignole to see what his/her thoughts are on the recent changes. I've already stated I'm impartial to whether or not it remains in the article, but at the same time, I understand where both sides are coming from. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Yes, my account was once hijacked because I left my account open at a terminal in a cafe. It happened twice in fact, the second time by an office sociopath who was angry at me for letting him go. Your point? So much for 'good faith'(read: your chronic complaint). Look, I'm not arguing against consensus because I'm afraid I will lose or because "I don't get it." But rather than do the lame thing and go straight to mediation for a petty sentence in an wikipedia article (that is not even mine in the first place), maybe I was being real here for a moment and trying to have a human being to human being conversation here. If reporting me makes you feel better about yourself, then go for it. I don't really have a reputation or ego to bruise here. As far as this debate goes, wikipedia is set up to prevent this murky kind of problem if editors would simply take the time to use the tools available. But most people do NOT have the time, so they let the lowest common denominator decide and we get watered down, censored wikipedia articles. Ergo...just because you can 'game the system' to advance a POV doesn't mean you should. But, giving YOU good faith here, I don't think that is what you are doing. I think you are just conflicted. If that's true, then let me remind you that Bignole confessed to motive when he slipped and argued for a WP:UNDUE violation, saying that "Only Warner Bros can decide if this is a disappointment." Here it is, in case he denies it..https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman_v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice&diff=prev&oldid=716759109 He simply changed his rationale after I called him out on it. Also, Bignole isn't a moderator. So running it past him means what exactly? But as far as the merits of 'this debate' go, the loose unofficial consensus so far was at least three editors (that I could count,maybe more) versus your impartial vote and Bignole's down vote. Out of respect for their wishes, I would like to still keep this civil, if possible. But if you want to start reporting this, then you have to decide if in the bigger scheme of things if it is really worth it and your time. I don't think this is a full-blown edit war. Most likely, this place will become even more forgotten when Marvel:Civil War comes out...which is a little ironic considering our debate about the disappointing nature of this film, dotcha think? But I was being snarky there. On a serious note, when it comes to this culture war here and elsewhere that everyone seems to be caught up in these days, I implore you to look inward and honestly ask yourself this important question: when it comes to journalistic integrity, what kind of world do YOU want to live in? You can have the final word on this debate, gentlemen. Peace out.Ghriscore (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Bignole represents the other side of the discussion. You made changes to the article, I attempted to restore the status quo, you reverted, and instead of worrying about the status quo, I pinged Bignole to see if he/she is fine with those changes. If so, we have consensus and can finally move on. Also, I'm not sure why you and Thefearedhallmonitor continue to bring up the terms "moderator" and "admin" in your comments. Making these kinds of references and comparisons are irrelevant to this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC) First, to address the dumb idea of "motive". I still stand by the argue that it's undue weight to attribute that statement in the lead. The original statement was focused on a specific wording that was only supported by one person and taken out of context. Before I realized that it was taken out of context from the actual article, it just seemed like we were putting a lot of value into one person saying that it was a disappointment for not making more than 900 million, which in fact that was not what he said. So, nothing about my original argument has changed. I was attacking the wording in the lead. That said, Gonein60 and I have discussed it at length, realizing what the sources were actually saying. At the moment, I'm fine with the wording because it represents pretty much what has been said by some: that it was a disappointment for not earning more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For others who may stumble across this thread, two users in this discussion are under an SPI that will likely lead to a block. I have collapsed their comments above. Bignole weighed in on the latest round of edits, and at this time, we're fine with the recent changes that user made. Moving on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor?

The film makes it apparent that the character Jesse is playing is not the same character Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey played in their Superman movies. This isn't the Lex Luthor that LexCorp was named for, but rather his son Alexander. The fact that he is nicknamed "Lex" is apparently the source for this confusion, but we shouldn't let this fact overrule what the movie itself establishes. So, while I have no problem with the character being called Lex Luthor (or, more appropriately Alexander "Lex" Luthor) in the cast list, his name should wikilink to Alexander Luthor and not his father.GSwarthout (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The film does not make that apparent. The film merely acknowledges that his father was "Lex Luthor" as well. He is credited as "Lex Luthor" and at this time, Zack Synder, Eisenberg, and everyone else have only have acknowledged him to be "Lex Luthor" from the comics. The idea that his name is "Alexander Luthor" is irrelevant, because Smallville had "Alexander Luthor" as well, but he was still "Lex".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The film *does* make that apparent in the dialogue. He introduces himself as Alexander Luthor and specifically states that LexCorp is named after his father, Lex. Lex, in the comics, had Lionel Luthor as his father, so this isn't that Lex. Smallville also has an Alexander Luthor, but he is actually a clone of Lex, which serves my point that he isn't the original Lex Luthor.. Alexander Luthor, as Jesse's character should be referred to, actually fits better because the character in the comics is technically Alexander Luthor, Jr. As I said, I have no problem with the character being referred to in the cast list as Lex Luther (though Alexander "Lex" Luthor would be more appropriate), just that the link the character name enjoys should not point to his father.GSwarthout (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The character in the film, as stated by those involved, is based on Lex Luthor from the comics--regardless of what his father's name is. Different versions of a character in different media can have different minor details. And Alexander Luthor Jr. is not even close to this movie's Luthor (even if he is a Jr.) because he ws specifically created for Crisis on Infinite Earths--which has nothing to do with this movie. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll go along with this reasoning since he doesn't have much in common with CoIE Luthor except the name. A better solution would be just to removed the link entirely, since neither destination refers to this particular character.GSwarthout (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Except it does refer to the comic Lex Luthor. Don't get caught up in the name. The character representation is based on the comic character, no matter how interpretive it is. Superman is somewhat different, but we still link to that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

If superman and clark kent died on the same day isn't that a clear give away. Also if they both come back to life some how isn't that too a give away. And the fact that one of those caskets are empty is that not weird. Like is he in the one for clark or the one for "superman". Like thats why it got like a 28% on the review. UserMeth (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2016 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)