Talk:Man of Steel (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Man of Steel (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 10, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
September 26, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chicago (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
WikiProject Comics / DC Comics / Superman / Films (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Man of Steel (film):

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Sequel Article[edit]

Should the sequel be given its own article now, since filming has begun? Alphius (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't have a title, and little more is known that what is shown here, I don't think there's a necessity for a breakout article just yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we have an incubation article for the sequel? This would suffice for the time being. Npabebangin (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's a "no". (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Renewed: The sequel section is over six paragraphs long, one of which even states that filming has already started. I think we can reasonably justify a full article at this point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Except there is not source saying that principle filming has started. They did some quick films of a football time for time reasons. The film was pushed back another year, and isn't even expected until 2016. Given the history of both of these characters having film sequels that start and then stop, I would say no. The fact that there are "6" paragraphs is really more because people are including very minimal announcements, like basic castings. It isn't more than "This actor is going to play this character", or "Zack Snyder is returning". The section is treated more like a news house than an encyclopedia, and contains information that would ultimately be deleted once a film article is actually full functioning. So, it's not really a lot of information. The 'pages' that I've seen created include information unrelated to this sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Grae Drake, editor of Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

Earlier the previous hour, I checked back in on this article (except for temporarily with regard to this matter, it's usually no longer on my WP:Watchlist) and saw that the Grae Drake commentary has been removed. So I decided to look in the edit history and see why. It wasn't long before I saw that Norgizfox5041 removed the material on November 8th because it "gives a false notion." I looked further into the edit history and I saw that Norgizfox5041 had previously removed the material, on October 6th, as "too biased." It was restored on October 21st by Kailash29792 because it "was accepted in the GA review."

I don't care much if this content stays or goes, but, Norgizfox5041, do you mind explaining what you mean by "too biased" and "false notion" in this regard? Do you mean that the content makes it seem as though Man of Steel was mostly panned by critics? If so, I don't see how the content is a problem in that regard, considering the review information in the Critical reception before that point. And does anyone else, such as Kailash29792, have anything to state on this matter? Note that this material was originally added by Xfpisher (talk · contribs) in June (as seen here, here and here) and that I tweaked it in July (as seen here). Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Drake appears like a notable person and gave his "review" of Man of Steel, the statement may be added back. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: Xfpisher re-added material on Grae Drake earlier this hour; I traded that out for the previous version of that material. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is fine. TBH, I couldn't figure out which edit I had to undo, and overall, I felt the new version was an improvement. But no problems with your edit.Xfpisher (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I see the appeal of including this commentary. It almost seems like fandom's attempted counterweight to the critics' lukewarm reception. Not to mention that having it in its own paragraph is a bit too much undue weight. At the very least, could we not shorten it and merge it with the RT information earlier? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add it as a counterweight, just to be clear--I felt that the editor of Rotten Tomatoes (who was a big booster of the movie, and therefore hardly unbiased) being so upset by the mainly lukewarm critical reception that he made what I believe was an unprecedented move of publicly dissenting from that consensus was worth mentioning. The article still doesn't say that the movie was 'rotten' on RT. But this serves the same general purpose. I think it does merit its own paragraph, simply because it's so unusual for an RT editor to speak out like this.Xfpisher (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It may be unusual for an RT editor to speak out like that, but it's perfectly normal for a film to recieve this kind of mixed reception. It seems as though that paragraph was meant to serve as an buffer and explanation for the lukewarm reception, as Erik had said, but no explanation is really needed. Some people liked it, others didn't. We can add a hundred other quotes like this to other films with mixed reviews, and those quotes will put the film in either a positive or a negative light, but no middle, because that is what the fans what. Thats just my opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to change it back. I'll let the pros decide.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I was never trying to say there was anything unusual about a movie getting mixed to negative reviews--certainly not a movie made by Zack Snyder. This is actually one of his better-reviewed efforts. :)Xfpisher (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed it too as the title of the article is "critical reception" and the guy is not a critic of any reknown whatsoever. If he's been published somewhere someone correct me. I mean its nice that he has an opinion but its not relevant especially not as the capper or final word in the section. Also his words are practically the opposite of profound as well. AaronY (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear on this I wasn't aware of this section or discussion at all and just happened upon this page and it stuck out like a sore thumb to me as well. Its a little jarring in its amateurishness tbh. AaronY (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I directed AaronY to this discussion after I reverted him here. AaronY, we sometimes include non-critics in the Critical reception section, because, really, critics are not the only ones who can be critical of a film (you know the saying "Everyone's a critic"?). For example, see that CinemaScore is included? That stated, looking at the discussion in this section, there is likely WP:Consensus to remove the Grae Drake text. Everyone, keep in mind that WP:Consensus is supposed to be based on the weight of the arguments, not simply headcount. Xfpisher, if WP:Consensus is against you on this, you should go with that sentiment. In the meantime, you could seek some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's an objective observation from an editor who just stumbled across this discussion. Well first and foremost, it's only a single sentence, which disqualifies it by most standards as being able to exist as a paragraph. Of course, that's a minor issue. In regards to content, the Drake commentary seems relevant, especially since the comments have been mentioned in at least three sources: Fox Business Channel,, and The Huffington Post (which is a good read by the way). However, despite being somewhat relevant, the commentary does seem out of place. The previous two paragraphs already illustrate the widespread mixed reaction from notable critics. Drake's comments don't really add any value here in terms of critical analysis. It's one person's opinion that doesn't carry any more weight than the professional critics already mentioned. In fact, it seems to throw the section out of balance, particularly with the position it's been given as the closing sentence. So on that basis I tend to agree with Norgizfox5041. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The text is currently removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This IP added the content back. Xfpisher, if that IP is you (I don't see who else it could be), then sign in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
And BilCat removed it soon after. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And here we are again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation Advert Link[edit]

Citation #72 actually links to one of these earn money sites, which surely is against wiki's rules on proper external links? I just can't find my login to contribute properly! lol (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this link. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (TC) 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
For talk page documentation, this is the link/edit in question. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Superman's costume[edit]

The "Design" section contains sparse information on Superman's costume. Because I have had little to do with the article and do not wish to mess it up, I kindly request someone to expand it with this and this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

At least a reply would do. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Be bold. Other editors will help proofread/copyedit/fact check/etc. DonQuixote (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"[edit]

Okay, I need to debate here. I didn't want to, but since there has been an editing conflict I need to address this. This film in reality (outside Wikipedia), has had people saying that this is the BEST Superman movie and the WORST Superman movie. I feel that the word to describe this film should be "polarizing" due to one half giving the film acclaim and another being strongly negative towards it. Cowik (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors can't say that. You would need a secondary source saying that it's "polarizing" (much like "critically acclaimed", "worst movie ever", etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)