Talk:DC Universe (franchise)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please Keep This Draft Clean & Simple

Don't add unnecessary information and adding entire freaking history of their DC Comics and DCEU counterparts under the title of each film. Given that every title you have heard of may have a history of "announced" by WB years earlier, don't clutter the page with that information. Keep it short and do not forget to add references meowmeow \S-) (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:DC Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:DC Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe § Requested move 31 January 2023. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Shazam! Fury of the Gods", "Blue Beetle" and "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom"

According to Gunn's words in the announcement video, as far as I understand, at least these three films should be part of the DCU, but not part of the Chapter One, and they could be also part of the old DCEU. Cirolchou (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation was that they are happy to oversee the release of those films and see ways to connect them into the DCU such as bringing the actors back, but they are not part of the DCU slate. Even if they were later confirmed to be "canon" to the DCU I don't think we would list them here with their own sections like the actual slate is. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, I think we should consider those three films (along with The Flash) as DCEU, and everything Gunn announced today (except for The Batman/Joker) as DCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't delete this new page DC Universe Franchise

Don't Delete this new page 222.127.255.119 (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I say it should be kept. Gunn has been referring to the DCEU and DCU universes separately and they should be treated as such ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t delete it because this is different from the old universe and it will be more confusing if kept the new movies and the old movies under the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovie11 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: Please leave your comments at the ongoing deletion discussion page instead. Prefall 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't delete!

Don't delete this page. According to James Gunn, it is clear that DCU is completely new and separate from the old DCEU. Mr.sandippaul (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mr.sandippaul: The proper place for this comment is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Universe (franchise). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DC Studios logo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Gunn confirms DCEU is NOT rebooting into DCU

As expected, James Gunn has now clarified that they are NOT rebooting the DCEU. When asked how some of the actors/characters will remain if he was 100% rebooting the DCEU he responded with "Nope" and then proceeded with: "Flash resets many things, not all things. Some characters remain the same, some do not." This can be read and reviewed here. This article was made prematurely as I tried to state last night in the discussion on DCEU's talk page. This article is now not at all separate, and needs to have all the information remain on the DCEU article. Renaming that article may need to be the new topic of discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

From a real-world perspective, it's a new property. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Gunn just posted on his Instagram story a post from another account that clarifies the canon and it in fact actually adds credence to the fact the DCU is a essentially a seperate entity from the DCEU.

It states that the "old DCEU" will comprise of the remaining theatrical releases this year (Shazam, Flash, Blue Beetle and Aquaman) and that everything from Creature Commandos onwards is canon to Chapter One of the new DCU. He's specifically highlighting posts from other users that talk about the DCU like it's a new canon entirely.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/10rcg8g/james_gunn_liked_and_shared_this_post_in_an_ig/

He also insists that Waller is in fact a DCU show and not a DCEU show. This comes after he already confirmed a character from Creature Commandos would appear in Waller in live-action

https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1620934833542402051?s=20&t=0bcb4zaiLAjQbuiKMt0gww RebelYasha (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation of these latest posts from Gunn is that he has confirmed the DCU is a new separate thong but he has also confirmed that it will be continuing some actors and/or storylines from the DCEU such as Waller and the Peacemaker team. Both can be true. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Мaybe this means that these actors will continue to play some Mr. X., but now the doppleganger version in parallel universe? IKhitron (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though it's not a full reboot, I think we should still keep this article separate from the DC Extended Universe article, yet still arrange the content in this article in a way that acknowledges that it is only a so-called "partial reboot". --CAJH (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Other DC film series added to Elseworlds

Should we add the other DC film series on this page as part of the Elseworlds branding? I'm referring to the 1970s Superman film series, the 1980s Batman film series, the Dark Knight Trilogy and other live action DC films as well such as Watchmen, Green Lantern etc. 2A02:C7E:485:C700:D184:35D2:E688:14A1 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

From a real-world perspective, none of those films were produced under any Elseworlds banner, because they were made before the DCEU existed, and most of them even before there were cinematic universes. The same way Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films and the X-Men films aren't included as part of the MCU, even though apparently canon, these should not be listed as Elseworlds films, both because they were never made under that banner and because the studio itself hasn't even called them that yet. —El Millo (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Blue Beetle

Hi. I think there should be some explanation in the article why Blue Beetle, beeing out after The Flash rebooting movie, is still considered a part of DC Extended Universe, and not the new franchise. IKhitron (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No ones said it would be set after The Flash, and even if it is it doesn't mean we should be getting too literal about in-universe timey-wimey stuff. From a real-world perspective, the DCEU is ending and being replaced with the DCU and The Flash is being given as a reason for the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Elseworlds

Can you please add a section/table detailing the Elseworlds projects (Joker, Joker: Folie à Deux, The Batman, The Batman Part II)? While not part of the mainline, they still fall under the Gunn/Safran purview and are part of the DC Universe. Adding Elseworlds to this page will give a place for those projects to live (they're not DCEU so they don't appear there) and will honestly help the average viewer understand why they don't connect to the main series. In addition, Safran stated that these projects won't happen often so it won't be a laborious or overly detailed addition to the DC Universe (media franchise) page. 2601:8C:C301:81F0:69C2:4F5B:9531:F39D (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The DC Universe article only concerns the projects specifically denoted as part of the shared universe continuity and its chronology. Where it's relevant, projects in other franchise are mentioned such as the relation between DCU Batman and Matt Reeves' Batman, but anything Elseworlds is better left fully detailed at the general DC Studios page. Having it here would only clutter things and inadvertently make it more complicated. RebelYasha (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A draft article at Draft:Elseworlds (franchise) has been setup for that branch of DC projects. Prefall 02:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Article is now live at Elseworlds (franchise). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this move that I have raised at Talk:Elseworlds (franchise)#Franchise?. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: the article has been moved to Elseworlds (DC Studios). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up for me. 46.64.106.50 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If you saw i put it under “expanded setting” section as Gunn may be involved with those future projects. Also Elseworlds doesn’t need it’s own page as projects from that brand will have their own franchise pages: The Batman (franchise), Joker (film series) etc. Aidan0007 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, my discussion over at the Elseworlds page is about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:DC Extended Universe#DCU

I looked at the template's page history and realized probably no one was going to respond, so dropping a link here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

Should this page be renamed to DC Studios Universe? Seems like it would be a good way to differentiate it from the DC Comics universe, since "DCSU" is a more unambiguous acronym than just "DCU". DC Studios does produce Elseworlds content too, but DCSU would refer to their main universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.94.81 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It's been called the "DC Universe" or "DCU". DC Studios is the studio behind it. We don't make up a new name to differentiate between things. That's why we use the (franchise) disambiguation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism on Gunn's plan with the video games

Can we add some mention in the video games section of the heavy criticism on James Gunn's plans for all future DC video games to be tied with the DCU? Its quite important to note, and several game developers and voice actors (and atleast two writers, one for GameRant and one for Inverse) have criticized Gunn's approach with this plan. 1 2 3 4 5 155.4.83.214 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As we have yet to see how any of the actors are handled for video games, I'm not too sure this is necessary at this time, given it is still early on and only Gunn and Safran expecting actors to voice the same characters across all media. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of what actually eventuates, it seems there has been a strong reaction, and such concerns are themselves notable.Swordofneutrality (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It is still very early on for us to note commentary on an expected plan as this franchise hasn't even begun yet, let alone production and casting on video games. The first three sources discuss the same complaints from one person who only worked on one DC game title and does not appear to be a notable figure, while the latter two are opinion pieces from less-than-high-tier websites. Any commentary once we know definitively how the games are handled could be added, but it is still too early to make a definitive call on this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Comic sales

User:Trailblazer101 how are momentary spikes in comic sales relevant to films or their development? Your content is irrelevant to the article and nobody even cares now. So what's the point? And why do you keep stonewalling with consensus instead of seeking a resolution? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would remove that paragraph too Redjedi23 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you started a discussion now. You were told in the past by myself and adamstom to discuss this here, and as the editor with the concerns who has been reverted before, it is on you to discuss it, see WP:BRD. I am simply upholding what was in place for the article prior to several contested removals. It is not by any means "[my] content" and I did not write it here. Coming in with the approach of me "stonewalling" does not seem constructive and I am always open to resolving disagreements and finding a compromise that best suites the articles' intended scope.

The increase in comic sales is notable to the franchise announcement as it shows a clear increase in interest in characters and storylines that would have otherwise not seen such increased levels of interest, particularly as it is on several best-selling lists and not just a generic increase. Per the sources used, the comics sold out at Amazon, Penguin Random House, Lunar Distribution, Barnes & Noble, Hudson Books, Target, Powell's, Books-a-Million, Walmart, Forbidden Planet, Midtown Comics, and Mile High Comics. I think if we denote the sales increases/selling out was for an array of retailers, stores, etc., we can better convey the reach and influence of the DCU selections on improving the comic sales. Gunn has said countless times that he's been working with Jim Lee to get more copies of select titles for these back in print and on the shelves (see Draft:Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow and Draft:The Authority (film) and other instances from quick web searches), so the announcement and his involvement in the sales definitely have had an impact. I can honestly go either for or against including it, although, there have not been any honestly valid points for removing the information other than it being a temporary spike (which is the case for many increases in sales for special events whether it be tickets, records, memorabilia, etc.), allegedly "irrelevant" with no reasons provided, and that "nobody even cares now", which is an opinion and holds no weight as an assumption (and given Gunn's work to bring certain comics back). Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You talk about wanting resolution yet seek none except your own preferred version.

The increase in interest in characters doesn't equate with the franchise because they're independent of it and it is a short-lived impact. Are they affecting the film popularity? If so I would like to know. Are the comics still in top-selling lists? If the sales mean that character will increase in relvancy it might be important, so can you show me any such thing that has happened or is that your own claim?

You say it being irrelevant is an opinion. Can you then show me continued coverage of sales of the comics? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"You talk about wanting resolution yet seek none except your own preferred version." You used the same rhetoric at my talk with the Aquaman dispute, and do not seem to be providing a constructive effort of WP:Assuming good faith. I have provided an option of how we can further explain the impact and pointed to sources on it. "The increase in interest in characters doesn't equate with the franchise" is plain wrong as there is a clear increased interest in the subjects of these properties as a result of the announcement, per the sources already present in the article. We can definitely add how Gunn worked with Lee to print more comics due to the timely popular demand. The whole point is that the announcement resulted in an increase in sales for publications featuring those characters. I am not saying we necessarily need to keep it, though I think it can be improved upon in its wording and info presented.

A quick web search shows this article detailing that the week of February 6-10, DC Comics had its first time ever in the Top 10 week at CovrPrice.com, a data-based website that covers comic sales. It lists several other titles the DCU is taking inspiration from and that their value has increased along with sales. It notes "COVRPRICE.COM uses live sales analytics to identify and compile the most robust market price guide, highlighting the weekly top trending comics. No opinions. Just data. Each week, they present a newly updated list of the TOP 10 COMICS trending in the aftermarket. These trends are due to rumors, fan-favorite covers, story-driven content, and content-related news."

I believe this information and the others that I proposed can benefit and further justify the inclusion of this information in the article, as there have not been solid points with evidence made to justify its removal. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The value increase was once again in the following week. There are also some other pieces on the impact of comic sales Gunn and the announcement have had here, here, and here (which also covers the sales charts). Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried assuming good faith for a while the last time and it did not lead to you trying to be cooperative, and I doubt this time would be any different.

I'm not talking about temporary spike in sales as you keep showing. Your citations of CBR, ScreenRant and ComicsBeat only talk about Gunn's announcement causing a temporary sales spike. That's not what I'm talking about. Please show me an impact on the franchise and characters in the long term, not a temporary spike even if they sold out.

There is absolutely zero benefit and relevancy to your information. Please remove it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have misunderstood my actions in a bad light, here and in the past. Wikipedia is a collaborative community of editors, so making demands is not acceptable nor how you change consensus for your preference. No rationale or evidence has been provided for why the information should be removed and it ought to remain in place until a more civil, constructive discussion occurs, which from my experience with you does not seem to be happening anytime soon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you're talking about good faith while claiming I'm making "demands". It is a request for you to follow simple courtesy of removing something you cannot prove has any relevancy, I thought the word "please" would suffice to convey I'm asking but I guess not. I've been asking you for some sort of proof that it's had a long term impact on the characters or any impact of the franchise, but all you care about is how there was an increase in sales (that too short-term). Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I misinterpreted that part and for that, I apologize. I feel both of us have come in headstrong, and I find you stating things like "You care about..." and "You talk about..." as almost attacking me for my points and stances. The string of questions to me felt like some were feasting for answers and actions which were not of merit (such as "film popularity" as no film exists yet). However, asking an editor to remove subject of discussion information, which again, is not mine, does not seem constructive or beneficial to the discussion. I provided points with sources, if you want the contents of the article to change from the present consensus, valid rationale points with evidence ought to be had and discussed to garner a new consensus, which is from more than just two editors in discussion. Again, none of this information in the article presently was what I added, I am only ensuring consensus is upheld unless a new consensus is had.

I am working to find a common ground, although you have not provided further evidence for why the immediate increase in sales and value is not relevant, and I see no reason why there are not noteworthy here when it is the direct comics of influences. I apologize that we have not seen eye-to-eye on things, and I hope we can have civil and constructive discussions, although nothing has made me confident in this information not being relevant and my further research heightened my stance for including it. It is a rather minute detail that typically would not warrant this much of a lengthy discussion and reverts from the past few months. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I already did. Upon adding something it is actually your responsibility to provide evidence it's relevant. I've asked you again and again to prove it wrong, which you're failing to do and are instead busy blaming. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Blue Beetle is DCU Canon

James Gunn has confirmed that Blue Beetle is DCU canon. Jstewart2007 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you seriously post this three times on three different pages? (don't take this message too seriously) InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know which pages to put it on. Jstewart2007 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would remove it from the table. The film was not in the DCU slate. Also, Gunn stated: 2I mean the first DCU character, for sure, is Blue Beetle, and the first full DCU movie is Superman". So the character is canon, but the film is not. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It should not have been added in the first place, and has been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Plus being "canon" doesn't mean that it's actually part of the universe in the real world, only in-universe. The Raimi and Webb Spider-Man films are canon to the MCU, as are the Venom films, but that doesn't make them part of the MCU, which is primarily about films produced under a certain banner and by a certain group of people, not about canon. —El Millo (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with InfiniteNexus and El Millo. Gunn only said the character is canon, not that the film was set in the new universe, or a part of that franchise brand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wanna follow up on this, as Angel Manuel Soto stated that the film is part of the DCU and its future plan, per the Deadline article here: https://deadline.com/2023/06/blue-beetle-director-film-part-of-dc-universe-future-1235422116/

At a minimum, I think Blue Beetle could use a paragraph under "Other films", similar to Peacemaker season 2 in the series section. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The information is trimmed to what is essential at this article and explained in more depth at Blue Beetle (film)#Future. Where it presently lies in this article's section is fine until we know how it contextualizes in terms of the exact future of the character. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Related to this topic, User:Adamstom.97 keeps removing that the director Soto stated that it was part of DCU because he thinks it's unnecessary. Even though Gunn earlier said Blue Beetle would be the first DCU character. So how is it unnecessary when it shows where the DCU canon (even if the film franchise proper begins with Superman Legacy) might actually begin? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Adam has not removed what you are saying he did, but copy-edited it to keep it simpler. Adam changed it from part of DCU and its future plans, while not being connected to prior DCEU films to part of future DCU plans and not connected to prior DCEU films. As I said before, that still says the same thing, one with fewer words. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

He did remove the part that it's "part of DCU" [1]. Future plans is not the same thing because Soto is referring to the present with "part of the universe". Saying it's only part of future plans can cause confusion, and cause the reader to think it's currently not part of DCU. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Soto didn't say the film was part of the DCU, he said: "We are part of the universe, we are part of the world, we are part of the plans that they have been creating for the future instalments of the DCU... But we are not tied to all the films from the past. Yes, our movie lives in the world where superheroes exist. But that doesn't mean that a certain event, or certain alliance, or certain things from the past dictate where our film is going." If you look at that whole quote, he appears to use "the universe" and "the world" to refer to the DC universe in general (or a universe with DC superheroes in it) and does not clearly differentiate between the DCU and the DCEU. What he does say, and what we can say in the article, is that the film is "part of the plans that they have been creating for the future instalments of the DCU" and it is "not tied to all the films from the past" and so that is how I got the wording "part of future DCU plans and not connected to prior DCEU films". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Adamstom97 he's clearly saying DCU, if he said we're part of DCEU it wouldn't make sense to say they're not connected to prior films. The articles clearly state that he's talking about DCU. If you think otherwise present a reliable source, original research isn't allowed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would argue it is more original research, going from what the source states, to assume the universe automatically means the DC Universe media franchise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't and if you think otherwise you're welcome to provide other reliable sources stating otherwise. WP:OR policy only applies to users, not sources. So you're not going to accomplish anything by calling them original research or creating a doubt about the sources without other sources to back your claims. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The source interprets that the quote means the film is part of the DCU. That would normally be enough, but we could search for how other sources interpret the quote. If other reputable sources do, then the discussion is ended and we must take it as it being definitively part of the DCU, at least until some other information appears that refutes it. —El Millo (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

MovieWeb and Comicbook.com seem to think the quote says that. MovieWeb states: Is Blue Beetle Part of the DCU? It seems so. James Gunn has suggested that Blue Beetle is one of the characters that straddles the old and new DC franchises, but will certainly be seen more as a part of the new DCU rather than a throwback to the old Snyderverse Comicbook.com states: it was unclear if it would end up in James Gunn and Peter Safran's rebooted DC Universe. That is, until now. According to a new interview (...), it seems that it will be a part of the new DCU. At least according to Blue Beetle director Angel Manuel Soto, who says that the film is a part of the new DCU. However, both sources seem to be taking it with a grain of salt. I think this is more than enough to include Soto's statement, but put it in his voice. Something like Soto said the film will take place in the DCU, without outright stating it as a fact. —El Millo (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You're not addressing what I said Facu-el Millo and misinterpreting the sources. Movieweb is confused about James Gunn's statement, not Soto's statement. Comicbook.com is clearly stating that Soto's statement has clarified it is in the DCU. You're hinging on the word "seems", but they clearly state he said it's a part of the DCU. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

MovieWeb's only comment on Soto's statement is From Soto’s comments, it looks like Blue Beetle is certainly here to stay in the franchise, not directly addressing the point we're discussing. I said Comicbook.com takes with a grain of salt given they say At least according to Blue Beetle director Angel Manuel Soto before saying it is part of the DCU. That's why I say we do as they do and simply put Soto said the film will take place in the DCU, not saying Soto confirmed or Soto revealed or It was confirmed to take place in the DCU, so that there truly is no chance of WP:OR. We're not even putting his words in doubt, as we're not using the verb claim or something like that, we're just stating exactly what happened. I do think that its inclusion is absolutely warranted, but as Soto's statement, which is the way these sources seam to treat it. Even the GamesRadar source says: DCU or not DCU? The emergence of DC Studios' upcoming 'Chapter One' has put many current projects in cinematic universe limbo. This August's Blue Beetle, however, seemingly isn't one of them. As director Angel Manuel Soto explains, the new superhero release is very much part of the conversation in the DCU, with the seemingly and saying part of the conversation in the DCU as the parts where it seems they don't give this the weight of an official confirmation. .—El Millo (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think we could say "Soto said the film will take place in the DCU" based on his current quote, because that is assuming "the universe" = "the DCU", which I don't think we can do even if some sources make that leap. We can't assume that everyone making these movies uses the exact same terminology as us, it sounds to me that Soto isn't clearly differentiating the DCEU and DCU like we do. There is also the fact that James Gunn has maintained that Superman: Legacy is the first DCU film and only said that the character Blue Beetle will continue, so it does sound like the DCU will not necessarily be beholden to the events of Blue Beetle and could pick and choose the different elements to bring back from the film. I think my interpretation is safer, and aligns with what we know from Gunn, at least until we get a new source or clarification. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Superman: Legacy (2025) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superman: Legacy (2025) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Legacy (2025) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Watchmen

At SDCC 2023 they announced an animated Watchmen film that is apart of the DCU and will release sometime in 2024 Cris4433 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Source for the animated Watchmen film being a part of the DCU? —El Millo (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/new-watchmen-movie-announced.html

They announced at at SDCC along with the Crisis movie that will probably end the Tomorrowverse Cris4433 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not for the DCU, as those animated slates are in their own continuity. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Crisis movie is suppose to end the tomorrowverse which will most likely set up watchmen as the first animated DCU movie. James Gunn said that in the DCU there will be a mix of animated and live action movies and tv shows Cris4433 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

most likely set up watchmen is speculation and original research, not to be used in articles. —El Millo (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We cannot interpret Gunn's words as automatically meaning any DC animated media is for the DCU. That is original research. The Tomorrowverse is separate from the DCU. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sasha Calle Playing Supergirl Again

For the following sentence under the Chapter One: Gods and Monsters section, "There was potential for Momoa, Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (the Flash), and Zachary Levi (Shazam) to also reprise their roles, but decisions on those characters had not been made.", I want to include Sasha Calle's Supergirl because there is so much potential for her portrayal as Supergirl, especially in Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. So the new sentence would be like this, "There was potential for Momoa, Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (the Flash), Zachary Levi (Shazam), and Sasha Calle (Supergirl (Kara Zor-El)) to also reprise their roles, but decisions on those characters had not been made." 216.106.250.16 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We include information based on secondary reliable sources, not on our opinions and predictions. Is there a reliable source that states there actually is potential for Calle to reprise her role? —El Millo (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What about this? Sasha Calle’s Supergirl Lives On | DC 216.106.250.16 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean this [2]https://www.dc.com/blog/2023/06/21/sasha-calle-s-supergirl-lives-on 216.106.250.16 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That source says Are you telling us this one movie is all we get? Unfortunately, I can't answer that question. All I can do is speculate and share my personal thoughts as a fan. So no. We can't use it. Then it claims that Gunn has said something and has a link that supposedly points to it, but the link doesn't have such quote by Gunn. —El Millo (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Lanterns

I wanted to make mention in the note part of Superman: Legacy that another reason to mention Nathan Fillion's casting as Guy Gardner / Green Lantern and not the rest is how the role introduces an element (the Green Lantern Corps) that the DCU is already set to explore further in the show Lanterns, but first I wanted to know: Is that a good idea? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, especially within a note, as it would just be stating what may be obvious but is still a bit speculative. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If Fillion shows up in Lanterns then that will be mentioned in the article but we don't know that yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Cast Members section?

Multiple actors are joining the franchise, so I think we should add a cast members section similar to other franchise pages such as Phase 4 at the MCU. AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There is only one property and no confirmed crossover with future projects. Far too soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, once we have more details on actors crossing over between projects we can put this together. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah you’re right AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I see that the supporting cast for Superman: Legacy has continually been removed. Would this not be a good place to include those significant castings, seeing as there is no separate page for the film yet? Thanks. Jrebeschi03 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Until there is a separate page for the film, the appropriate place for these details is Superman in film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification, I appreciate it. Jrebeschi03 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Clayface

I'm wondering if it makes sense to remove this info from the article. The sources we have for this "potential film" are not confident that it was anything more than a one-off meeting, and they are definitely not confident that it would actually be part of the DCU and not an Elseworlds story. Just how we are restricting the Elseworlds section to projects that are confirmed to come under the Elseworlds label, I think we should be restricting the main film and TV sections to projects that are confirmed to be part of or intended for the DCU. At the moment that just includes the officially announced projects and S2 of Peacemaker. I think it would be appropriate to keep this info at Clayface#In other media until it is confirmed to be happening and clarified whether it is DCU or Elseworlds. That should also help us avoid the problems that the DCEU page has historically had with its large list of potential / cancelled projects that were sometimes never confirmed to be part of that shared universe. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support just leaving the potential Clayface film details to the Clayface article, as its inclusion here can be misleading to some readers and is only half of what is potential. I created Draft:Untitled Clayface film a few months back to document the contents should it progress. It is best to avoid a rabbit hole with an extraneou list of potentials. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the information and section from the article and moved the Clayface details to that section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Blue Beetle

I know Blue Beetle is technically a DCEU but James Gunn said it was apart of the DCU continuity and I was thinking we should and an article where the movies are explaining it Cris4433 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The development section explains this already. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

can i be given permission to make edits to help add to the information well and to contriubte for the audeince Rolo891 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Rename as "DC Cinematic Universe"?

A review by Variety regarding the opening box office for Blue Beetle billed the DC Universe as "one of the softest starts in the history of the DC Cinematic Universe." Should we rename it to that? - 84.67.196.8 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That name is not official, and was referring to the DCEU, not this franchise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

New Casting

Can someone add the Casting of Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Eve Tessmocher and the Engineer which are all confirmed by James Gunn Cris4433 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is for the franchise as a whole, and is not for every individual casting for each project. That is handled at the draft for Superman: Legacy, which will be moved to the mainspace once filming begins. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Soft Reboot"?

I question how soft of a reboot the DCU is; it seems as if Peacemaker et al and Blue Beetle will be the only characters carried over in any way. Perhaps not an entirely 'hard' reboot, but it also feels reductive to call it a soft reboot when so little is remaining. TheJamesifer (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The usage of "soft reboot" is sourced and is defined as some things changing for a reboot while others stay the same or slightly the same/similar, such as continuity, stories, etc. This is correct here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Television Series Table

Should we not also include "Network" column in the table? If yes, please do so. Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the series are being made for Max. If that changes in the future and there is more than one "network" then a column could be added for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Where in the article does it state that all the series are being made for Max? Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In the section for each TV series we include the streaming service if known. We currently do not know of any other than Max. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I still suggest adding it as a column, if not, then at least mentioning that all series are being made for Max, somewhere within the text of the article. Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Added in prose about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Elseworlds

Shouldn’t My Adventures with Superman be added to Elseworlds or is it not confirmed? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that supports the Elseworlds label being used for that series then please provide it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Elseworlds

Please stop adding everything DC releases into Elseworlds. This is something Gunn said that once DCU has officially started then projects other than the main continuity come under Elseworlds. The DCU hasn't even started yet. You keep adding the movies like Merry Little Batman which was released last year. Superman & Lois is gonna end soon. There's no point adding that into Elseworlds.

When Gunn first mentioned Superman & Lois to be a part of DCU he did it because it wasn't cancelled and he expected it to continue when DCU starts. And with Merry Little Batman, he mentioned it with a tag of Elseworlds in a tweet trying to respond to someone in a way they would understand. This is not official and he has deleted the tweet after for possibly the same reason.

Adding things like these are not official and dilutes the significance of Elseworlds which is reputed in comics. Help Me Goddess (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That feels like a very cagey WP:SYNTHESIS rationale. How do you know what Gunn intended by his comments or what he was thinking? We have reliable sources verifying this information to be true. Gunn is one of the most official sources of information when it comes to DC nowadays, so to say his comments were not official is plain wrong. Regardless of your thoughts on Elseworlds, your removal is not supported by what the sources actually present. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Elseworlds is included in this article for projects released under that banner by DC Studios, which has existed since November 2022. By all means, intents, and sourcing, those two projects you mentioned (and the others currently in the article) qualify under those rationales. Also, we are not including every DC property. Just see the discussion right above this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It didn't exist since November 2022. It was first mentioned by Gunn that Elseworlds will be the tag for the projects for all things non-DCU, after the DCU officially starts. Help Me Goddess (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Gunn also mentioned all Elseworlds project will come with the Elseworld tag put on them. Did these projects say Elseworlds in any way when they got released? Did they put the tag in front of the movie/series? Help Me Goddess (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

https://screenrant.com/dc-universe-elseworld-difference-openings-james-gunn/

It shows in this clearly, that all official Elseworlds movies will have a distinct branding. Help Me Goddess (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's see. I am sure someone will ask Gunn about this specifically and he will give a clear idea, but I am very sure these will not be included in the official list if it ever gets discussed. Help Me Goddess (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Everything in the Elseworlds section at the moment has a reliable source saying it will be released under the Elseworlds branding. If you have updated sources that say this will not be the case then please provide those, otherwise those projects will stay in the section for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest arranging them in tabular form. It'll be easier to understand that way. Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What columns would the table have? It is just a simple list of titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem of this list is that, probably, every single DC products not tied with the DCU that will come out in the next years will be labeled as DC Elseworld. Within five years, the list will be probably huge. Probably, in the future James Gunn will states that every single old DC products will be "Elseworld". So for the moment it is ok for me to list Merry Little Batman, Harley Quinn and so on, but I think that in the future we should remove some of these products and list only the ones that are labeled "DC Elseworld" in the intro of the film (since Gunn stated that every DC Elseworld products starting from 2025 will have a dedicated intro). Redjedi23 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We do only list projects that are labeled as "DC Elseworlds" in the intro. If someone tries to add something that is not labeled as such or does not have a source saying it will be, we have removed it. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, in this exact moment there's no product labeled "DC Elseworld" in the intro. The first film that will get this intro is The Batman — Part II, but even Joker: Folie à Deux will not have that intro according to Gunn. Redjedi23 (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That is why I said "or does not have a source saying it will be". - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

But The Batman (the first one) and Merry Little Batman has been released and they don't have the "DC Elseworlds" intro, and there aren't sources stating that they will have it. There are sources that shows these products as DC Elseworlds films, but as I stated before probably Gunn consider every single DC product that is not set in the DCU as Elseworlds. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether the past projects or future ones have an Elseworlds-specific intro or not, we have confirmation from Gunn that all of the projects mentioned are now classified as Elseworlds. Realistically, he probably does consider every non-DCU work as Elseworlds, but I don't think that's much of an issue at this time. We are only listing ones we have confirmation for (WP:VNT), and I think some of these concerns veer into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Blue Beetle is not confirmed to be a DCU series

The Deadline article does not state that it is a DCU series. Ok, probably it will be, but we can't assume that (WP:VNT). @Adamstom.97 says that we can't say that the series will be an elseworld: that's correct, in fact I propose to don't write anything about this series in this page for the moment, as we don't know the true nature of the project. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is a similar case to when new Marvel Studios and Sony-Marvel projects are revealed, in which it is often not explicitly stated they a part of the MCU or Sony's universe, though that is typically the most common/logical path for them moving forward, especially for DC. Gunn and Safran did say there would be a "high bar" for Elseworlds projects, and I think the background information about Blue Beetle and the animation-live action connections (which are more easily connected at the draft here) are enough justification/support for this being in the DCU rather than something that was Elseworlds. If it were Elseworlds, I feel like that would be specified (and we, as such, would need more concrete evidence to support that being the case, as Adam noted in his revert). Just because it is animation and continuing from a DCEU film does not inherently mean it won't be in the DCU, as most of DC Studios' projects will be for the DCU. I think it is a safe call to leave it in this article for now, as it does not seem incorrect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We have sources confirming that most new films and series developed by DC Studios will be set in the DCU. The ones that aren't need special sources to confirm that is the case. Like Trail said, we would not assume that a new project from Marvel Studios is not set in the MCU unless otherwise specified. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Gunn said Xolo Maridueña would play Blue Beetle in the DCU, and the series is planned to bring most of the film's cast back. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone who looks at this, I want to make sure a systematic change I wish to make won't cause trouble.

After a few discussions of concerns over article precedent and consistency I've had with @Trailblazer101 (with input from @YodaYogaYogurt154), I want to ask if everyone would be okay if I went and did the tedious work of adding |publisher= parameters to the references of each and every DCU-constituent article. I know that MCU and DCEU articles do not have this parameter, but I wish to be purposeful in starting to add this detail in every article of the DCU while it is small, and so everything within this scope is at an increase of encyclopedic value, even though it's not technically required, it adds good info. BarntToust (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

(ping @Adamstom.97, @KingArti, @InfiniteNexus, @BestDaysofMusic, @RebelYasha, @Dcdiehardfan, and @Rusted AutoParts) BarntToust (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already opposed this cosmetic change at Superman (2025 film) and in the discussion at my talk here as the |publisher= parameter is neither required nor necessary for the direct sourcing of the websites, journals, newspapers, etc. that make up the citations of these articles, and is only really needed with book or print refs. As an example, not every Deadline Hollywood citation needs an additional link to Penske Media Corporation as the source for the information is Deadline, not Penske. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And per the directory above, I have already supported this cosmetic change because there are no groundbreaking reasons to not include these details, and is only just more informational, more prim. If BarntToust wants to kill time, let her. It's ultimately adding more encyclopedic content, which happens to be this site's sole purpose. Stylizations such as this do not detract any measurable aspect from user experience, and this would simply make the topic look even more professional when done. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR exists and if this is the attempt to change the established consensus of not including the parameter to including it, I am opposed. MOS:VAR would also apply: I don't see the substantial reason for the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. CITEVAR was what I was getting at in my points. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The publisher of a website is generally not noteworthy or significant, unlike the publisher of a book where it is a key aspect. I don't see the need for this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm withdrawing my proposal for this. We got bigger fish to fry than this frivolous content. BarntToust (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

|publisher= is not normally used when citing news articles, unless if we are citing an organization (e.g. BBC) or if the source is "embedded" within another (e.g. Intelligencer). WP:CS1#Work and publisher states: The "publisher" parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work. |newspaper=[[USA Today]]|publisher=[[Gannett Company]] is listed as an example to avoid. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

An example in this sphere of content on Wikipedia where |publisher= is useful/needed is when citing anything from Total Film, SFX, or Newsarama, all those are "embedded" under GamesRadar+ and their url's are such (ie www.gamesradar.com) so that distinction is necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)