Talk:Man of Steel (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

No redirect

This is a film project page. Like The Avengers, i created the page with the intent that we could add the information here rather than bunch it up in the Superman in film page. I am looking for outside opinions right now, so i shall revert the redirect edit until we meet a consenus. My argument: Since this is a greenlit production and has already intiated casting, i thng a stand alone FILM PROJECT page should be here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:55 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed. You really shouldn't have reverted this without adding to the debate. Please join in here. Talk:Superman in film#Breakout article for 2012 reboot? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Change

The movie is officially titled Man of Steel, and the villain is General Zod. IGN says so. J.Severe (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See also http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/michael-shannon-play-villain-general-176799, which is a more-reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We we all correct at one time. We can in this case now dewer to the absolute latest announcement from Warner Bros as reported in Huffington Post... article titled: "'Man Of Steel': Superman Movie Renamed, Michael Shannon Cast As Villain General Zod".[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source? *sarcastic look*

For all we know the title could be The Man of Steel, ergo, it's not been confirmed per se, from a reliable source such as a spokeman from Warner Bros. or from Nolan or Snyder's team. --Bartallen2 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they do release a statement that says the title is The Man of Steel, then we'll change it. *exasperated look* - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate article

If you check the edit history of my page superman man of steel(2012 film), you'll obviously see that it was already created long before this one, this is a duplicate article. I have someone reveiwing this article, please do not remove the deletion tag. F.R Durant (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your article was introduced from your user space - this page was already here. Would suggest that you requested move from your user space to here, or somewhere else, maybe with administrator's help to avoid conflict, etc., or maybe just merge pertinent information to here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to have this deleted. [2] Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:29 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yagottabekiddinme

Nobody bothered to look at the incubator to see if it should have been merged here?

You know, I think anyone might get a bit miffed over that. The AfD may be OTT, but geeze what a train wreck.

And RA "The article i have created has been accepted as the main article," is a bit of self preening that smells like ownership and definetly not the type of post that should be made to enourage working together. This may be the final title the article on the film get listed under, but that is not going to be your article. Other will have had a hand in editing it, updating it, fixing it, re-writing it, and on and on.

Looking at it:

1. Superman: Man of Steel (2012 Film) should be restored, looked at, and have the relevant material copied over.
2. It should then be moved here and the histories merged so all the work is acknowledged.
3. Nominating a redirect for AfD, and edit warring to keep the tag comes of as spiteful.

- J Greb (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The incubator was started as a film article, and as such it's too early to consder merging the content here. The author appears to have misunderstood the result of the AFD, and thought it meant that it was OK to create the full film article. He then moved it to mainspace, and AFDed the current film project page. It went downhil from there, but note that most of the users involved in all that are relatively new users. And this all happened inb the few hours while I was offline, and probably the same for other more-experienced users. There's enough blame to go around, but let's not shoot everyone involed either. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the history of Superman: Man of Steel (2012 Film) back to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Superman:Man of Steel (2012 film) where it was originally, where other users can work on it in the meantime. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but while not "shooting everyone" pointing out what was so very wrong about this situation was needed.

If the other article is in full bore film formatting and nothing can/should be ported over, fine. Putting it back in the incubator keeps the articles in the same situation though: at some point they are going to need to be merged. Both in content and editing history.

- J Greb (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have got to agree with J Greb. We have two different contributions history going on. That's why I was like "What the..." when I noticed a (film project) article had to be created. That messed up the contribution history of the userspace then article incubator being part of the mainspace. But let's blame the what was unsure of title at the time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The name does have somewhat to do with the issue, but not the only factor. There are other histories out there too. The article space/incubator version isn't the only one, nor is it probably the oldest one either. But that's a problem inherent in WP's "anyone can edit" model - they usually do, whether they know enough about WP and its procedures to be genuinely helpful or not! The fact that any refistered user, regardless of the number of edits, can create new article doesn't help the situation either. We just have to live with those thing for now. All we can really do is make sure the various histories that have actually played a part in the existing text are attributed correctly, as with so many histories and time overlaps, a clean history merge is probably long out of the question. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not supporting a merge though. What's done is done now and the incubator can be design example of how it's going to look in the future I suppose. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Zod

Again? Does anyone know if he's the only confirmed villain? For a reboot I hope they'll go beyond Luthor and Zod, would people really hate Metallo or Brainiac? DB (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Im back, page merger

hi, im back on wikipedia now. we should merge my superman man of steel article with this one, being as man of steel is the title of the film(according to snyder) — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Superman:Man of Steel (2012 film)? This is still a film project, not an in-production film. And what's in the Incubator page that isn't here already? - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

nothing, just delete the incubator and this will be the official page. F.R Durant (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting quote?

"I told them, it’s not that bad. Just treat Superman Returns as the Ang Lee Hulk,"

If I didn't know that Ang Lee was a director and happened to direct a film called Hulk, I would have no idea what the end of that was saying. I would like to add clarification, along the lines of "as the Ang Lee [film] Hulk," Any ideas on how to rewrite or is the quote good enough as is?

Dibbun (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Ang Lee and Hulk are wikilinked, so I think it shouldn't be that hard for people to figure it out. I say leave as is. --Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Film project / film article.

As we have deemed this to be notable independent of WP:NFF, I can't really see any rationale as to why this shouldn't be treated the same as any other film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not at a point where it has earned a permanent stay. If the project is halted, then it would become part of Superman in film like the other attempted projects. To call a project that has not begun filming "upcoming" is far less true than if filming is underway. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay - not quite what I mean though. I recently noticed that someone tried to change "Planned cast" to "Cast", and this was reverted. If we can always merge back to Superman in film, then for all the time this article exists, why not treat it the same as any other film? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Again really? We have discussed this ad nauseum and consensus has remained the same. But once again coverage of the planned film's development has been deemed notable as an independent topic but since there is no film as of yet (not one frame has been shot), we take precautions not to identify this article as a film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know we have, it's just when I see articles like this it concerns me that people see this as an example and a green light to make "film project" articles for any old planned film. By treating this as a "film", we demonstrate that we have discussed and come to the conclusion that this is notable. Or something. I'm just concerned about the old floodgates again. :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to treat each article independently and evaluate each's notability. Some might be notable but I would say most are not. To bring this topic up here after we have discussed it just seems pointy. I do think it will help if we determined a measurable qualification of when a film's development warrants inclusion as a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - I think it's a little unfair to accuse me being pointy :( My question was related directly to this page, as this is the only one left of the so-called "film project" articles. As it's the only one, and getting pretty close to when filming commences, I don't really see why, when the cast (to take one example) is all but confirmed, we can't call them "Cast" and structure like any other film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me I know you are acting under good faith and desire what is best for Wikipedia, I said it seems pointy, not that it is pointy. The actors specifically have been confirmed to be apart of the cast if the film is made, as now there is no cast as there is no film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think what I'm trying to say is that if consensus is that it's notable, then we're saying that it is notable as a film. If it's notable as a film, then we should treat as a film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But we're not saying it is notable as a film, only an article on a planned film's development. It might help to think of it as a sub-article under Superman in film, kind of like what is Production of Watchmen to Watchmen (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No that's not the case at all. The reason that Production of Watchmen exists is because of the size of the article Watchmen (film) would be if all the material was included there. I'm still under the opinion that the material on this article belongs at Superman in film - there's really not that much here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Size alone does not determine notability, coverage does.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but size is the only reason that Production of Watchmen exists, otherwise it would be part of Watchmen (film) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But, if consensus is that this film is notable, then my opinion would be to treat it as a film. That's all I'm saying. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The basic fallacy here is there is no film, not yet anyway.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so therefore there shouldn't even be an article. It goes against guidelines, and the waving around of WP:GNG is all well and good, but there is no reason that this information can't be included at Superman in film, the "coverage" applies equally there. BUT this is not what I'm trying to say here - you're dragging me in a different direction with the argument (from round about the point you accused me of being pointy). Look at the first 4-5 entries in this discussion. Let's go back to that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:GNG is guideline, in fact it is the guideline that all Wikipedia articles are subject to. You originally asked why should this article be treated differently, that question has been answered here and elsewhere. If you are still not convinced, so be it, consensus remains.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I'm trying to say, you're missing my point. I'm not arguing about notability, I've conceded that point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see others are trying to add infoboxes now. I don't think I'm alone in thinking we should be treating this as any other film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Except others have always been trying to add that. Nothing has actually changed with the project since we started this page. The only thing that has occurred is casting announcements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said to Rob on my talk page, I would be fine with doing a merge if something happens to stall this project. I'd rather not merge only to have to undo it soon. WP:NFF is better applied early on to define the location for news coverage. "Film project" articles are unfortunately not understood by editors as "occasional exceptions"; they think it is a go-ahead to create or defend articles on projects in development. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree film projects are "occasional exceptions", and we need more editors like Rob Sinden to be vigilant patrollers of future film articles. However this vigilance was also needed before the creation film project when premature future film articles were still a common occurrence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Filming has occured, thus this shouldn't be as such any more, in terms of Man of Steel's Wikipedia entry. --Bartallen2 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh it has? Do you have a source? My sources say around August 7th. —Mike Allen 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A source in the article dated July 28 states filming starts Monday (the next Monday would be August 1).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose, then, we move the article to Man of Steel (film) as the article is now about a film in production versus a film project in talks. BOVINEBOY2008 20:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, even if it is wrong, the 7th is close enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just a notice that I have requested an uncontroversial move which can be viewed here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The crew on Man of Steel?

When exactly will we get a full list of the confirmed crew members of Man of Steel, apart from the producers, as IMDB for the means of confirmation isn't exactly always accurate to be perfectly honest with you. --Bartallen2 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right and I am glad you understand that IMDb should not be used as a source for upcoming films. Allrovi is more reliable since it's not user edited like IMDb, but sometimes they can be incomplete this early on about composers, editors, etc (which is the case here).[3] Their cast listing is preferred over IMDb. Another source (which uses All Movie Guide) is The New York Times, like here, and again they can be incomplete. (The do list the production companies though and also William Hoy as editor) Other places this early in production is to look for crew information in reliable sources like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter write ups about the film. When the poster/official site is released, the crew will be listed for certain. —Mike Allen 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh brilliant! Thanks alot, MikeAllen :3 --Bartallen2 (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Premise

Can we rewrite the premise in our own words? That way, we can write "in his twenties" instead of quoting the "twentysomething" word that some editors seem to dislike. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Erik, I'm fine with rewriting the premise to be in our words (instead of just directly quoting it). Thus allowing us to write "in his twenties" instead of "twentysomething".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, though it was a little challenging to address the vague statements (e.g., not mentioning Zod). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just fine. You did a good job for what you had to work with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If Michael Shannon is General Zod, who will play the other two villains Ursa and Non?

If Michael Shannon is General Zod, who will play the other two villains Ursa and Non in the upcoming feature? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ursa and Non aren't included, given that they were created by Richard Donner and all. Instead Zod's companion will be Faora. --Bartallen2 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Premise vs Reconstruced Premise

Hey :3

I originally added the premise section to the Man of Steel page, with the respective embedded links included, however, it was seemingly justifitably changed; but nevertheless shouldn't the original premise which Warner Bros. put forth be used instead, given that their word, as far as the construction of the official premise, holds more weight than one constructed and tampered by a user of Wikipedia.

Also for that matter, the Hobbit's premise was never altered, so why Man of Steel's? --Bartallen2 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is copy right infringement, if there words are copied used then its an issue. At least thats my best guess. Not sure about the hobbits though. P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with copyright infringement as the reason Erik changed it in the first place was, according to him, the premise's usage of promotional language, thus why i still believe the official premise should be used. --Bartallen2 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bart, you are right that it is not copyright infringement. It is acceptable to have a brief quotation per WP:NFC#Text. However, if we can rewrite the quote in our own words, especially to achieve a neutral description of the film's premise, then we should, per the policy WP:NPOV. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey again, Erik :3 Well I see, but why such a course of action wasn't taken with The Hobbit and various other films, as far as their own premise's go, I shalt understand. But in any there was importance in the fact that the premise had contained speech marks. --Bartallen2 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cant talk for other pages, but to prevent Copyvios regardless of if the information is allowed or not, I personally try and reword premises for unreleased films as and when I see them. So far it hasn't been disputed by other editors. Plus, by rewording it we get rid of Peacock words and make it more reader freiendly and make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than the usual selection of press releases. MisterShiney ✉ 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition of the First official image of Man of Steel

Hi. I think it would be great if we add the official image if Superman as he appears in the Man of Steel. Inam Illahi —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Henry Cavill's Nationality

Hello Editors. I believe Henry Cavill is inaccurately presented as 'the first English actor to portray Superman', because he's British and not English, since he was born in the island of Jersey, which is a British Crown Dependency. I think I have an account but can't remember my credentials, so I don't feel comfortable making anonymous edits, so if anyone wants that privilege, be my guest. Ciao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.16.152 (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The main text says "non-American actor", so I changed the caption to read the same. DonQuixote (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is Lex Luthor not in this upcoming film?

Lex Luthor is Superman's arch-enemy. He's always tried to kill Superman with Kryptonite, but gets defeated at every turn. Why is Lex Luthor not in the upcoming Man of Steel film? AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Avoid predictability? I mean, The Joker is Batman's arch-nemesis and he wasn't in Batman Begins.Rusted AutoParts 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No 3D

According to some sources, like the Superman Homepage, Man of Steel will not be in IMAX 3D. This should be discussed and corrected in the article if true. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan prefers his movies in 2D, however Inception was released in 3D in other countries but the United States of America. Since Nolan is producer, I don't think 3D is a valid option for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.179.68 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Trailer

The Man of Steel trailer was released in Yahoo Movies on June 21, 2012. --> http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/man-of-steel/trailers/ jmarkfrancia (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/man-steel-teasers-zack-snyder-superman-terrence-malick-352769

http://www.slashfilm.com/man-steel-teaser-trailers-superman-big-screen/ Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither is a real assessment of the trailers, just descriptions of what is in them and then blanket talk about how the ComicCon footage showed more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I'm sure people will see this, but I reviewed what people had said about trailers, and I reviewed the WP:MOSFILM#MARKETING guidelines, and decided to add a little blurb about the trailer, but mostly from a critical perspective. GambitEyes (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but we need reviews from sources that are more reliable. Blogs and podcasts are often not seen as reliable sources of information, and the professional film opinion of an engineer or pediatrician is not going to cut it. The source is basically a fansite from people that love films. While it's probably a good read, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Just to clarify, fansites can get press passes too, so their personal statement that they are "recognized" by all those sources does not amount to anything, unless they can show that those places will cite them when it comes to news information. Anyone can put on their personal website that they are "recognized" as an "official press", but if they cannot show how they are recognized then it does not make them anymore reliable. It does not take a lot to get a "press pass", but nothing on their website shows how they are anything other than fans of film that started their own blog.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Singer

Has Bryan Singer been a producer on this film at some point? Going by the article as it stands, it looks like he's not involved with the film at all, but other web sites are saying he's a producer of the film. --Ben Culture (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What websites are those? If they fall under reliable sources, then we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry for any confusion -- I have seen no reliable source at all. I was embarassed to say this, but it was really just one disagreeable moron, commenting on YouTube. Now he's been properly shouted down, as is generally done there, with heaps of delicious abuse. What was I thinking? I didn't mean to lie! So sorry! --Ben Culture (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which incarnation of the story will this movie follow?

Do we know yet if this movie will be Silver-, Golden-, Modern-age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse914 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Development section confusing?

Anyone else find the Development section a bit confusing? Not the writers fault, the Development of the film and all its ideas and changes was convoluted. I'm just wondering if a different approach to the format of the section and describing it would help make a better wiki page? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Red underwear

Can someone pls add that this film will feature Superman sans his RED UNDERWEAR? There are various sources to that. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not provide any reliable sources discussing the significance of him not having his red SHORTS (they aren't underwear). Should you do so, we can certainly add it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What about these? [4] and [5] look very reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't really say why they didn't include them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, just include that Man of Steel will be the first film to showcase Superman without the red "trunks", using the sources I mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We can probably do that once we get more information on the production, particularly costume design. Right now, it's just trivia to state such-and-such is the first. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just trivia at the moment. Unless you could find enough information about the change in costume, their motivations and reasons etc etc to warrant a section...? On a personal note...I want to see the briefs! They were a part of my childhood putting my briefs on the outside of my trousers and running round pretending I was superman! MisterShiney ✉ 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally found a source which describes more the costume, and why the red trunks were omitted. Use this [6] ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not really clear why they didn't put the shorts on him. He just says he looked at it and everyone said "no". Then he goes in circles about modernization of the suit and how this suit is tied closely to the original. I don't think he has a real reason for why he doesn't have the shorts, as what's on that page seems a littl convoluted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

American-British

The movie's main producers are both British, and it's written by a British person. It should be American-British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The product is owned and produced by an American company (Warner Bros.), so that makes it American.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes i know, hence wahy i didn't say it's a British, or British-American movie, but calling a movie strictly "American" means it's entirely American, when this movie is not. It's only fair to call it American-British. The producers are British, the writers and one of the production companies as well (Syncopy films). This makes it an American-British movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how we determine ownership. The movie, the characters, the rights are owned by an American company. Who is hired to make the actual film does not dictate the origin of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So let's say a movie is entirely made by French, written, produced, screenplay, editing, production company etc, but it's distributed by an American company. That means that movie would be an American movie? That's not how it works. That would make Harry Potter movies American for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say distribution, I said owned. Anyone can distribute a film, it's about who owns it. Harry Potter would be an example of a joined ownership, because Warner Bros owns the film rights, but a British company owns the stories and the characters. It's about ownership. Also, please respect WP:BOLD. You made an edit that was disputed, please do not re-add it while there is an on-going discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's about who owns it, then that is partly Christopher Nolan, because he wrote it. And you're wrong anyway. That's not how it works. Look at any movie you want, "The girl with the dragon tattoo" for example, it's a Swedish-American-British-German movie, because there are more factors involved in making a movie other than the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nolan doesn't own the script, because he didn't write anything. Goyer wrote it and he sold it to Warner Bros, which makes it their property. As for TGwtDT, it's American/Swedish because MGM owns the film rights and Norstedts Förlag owns the source material. There is no German/British in there. I'm sorry, but you're the one that is mistaken. You need to stop thinking that just because there is a British cast, or a British director that it somehow means the film is British. It doesn't. They are hired help, nothing more. They don't own anything on the film. A company (or companies) own it, and that is how it is decided.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nolan didn't write anything? Look again on the main page. He wrote the story. And you can see even here on Wikipedia at the "The girl with the dragon tattoo" page that at country of origin there is, US, Sweden, UK and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You are contradicting yourself, you say the owner is the company who is sold to, and also the writer, and then you say Nolan who wrote it isn't the owner because he sold it to Warner Bros. In general, whatever company the movie is sold to, that company isn't the creator of the movie, that's stupid to say that Warner Bros made this or another movie. Inform yourself, it's not just about owners, it's about the people who actually created the movie.

First off, I never said the writer was the owner. You said that Nolan was the owner because he wrote Man of Steel. I said, he did NOT write Man of Steel, David Goyer wrote it. That said, Goyer sold his script to Warner Bros., so they own that regardless. I didn't contradict myself, I merely asserted how your identifying a script writer as "owner" does not compute, because they don't own their scripts. Warner Bros. did "make" the movie, because it is their money, plus the fact that they OWN the rights to the film. If Nolan owned anything then that means he could make a film if he wanted to with the same characters...he cannot. Warner Bros. owns Batman and Superman (and all DC Comics characters for that matter). They own the characters, the settings, the film rights, ...everything. That means that the country of origin for a Batman or Superman film (or for an Aquaman film if that's the case) will always be the United States. It doesn't matter if if the director they hire is British, German, or Dutch. Otherwise, you're arguing that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban should really be an American-British-Mexican film, because Alfonso Cuaron is Mexican and he directed the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine, whatever i don't care. But FYI that's just not how it works. The writer of a movie is the actual person to CREATE the movie, weather he sold it's rights to a production company is irrelevant, the movie's CREATOR is still the person who wrote it. If Bob Kane or Bill Finger were French for example, than the Batman movies would be partly French. It's not just about owners. The company buys a product that was already made by someone. Anyway doesn't matter, if you look on IMDB where many people get their info from, 99% of the movies are American. Inception is American, Harry Potter DH part 2 is American-British. Typical American propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "creation" with "ownership". The field of "country of origin" is not based on who wrote the film or directed it (and BTW, the director would have as much say as a writer...and I see that you didn't comment on Alfonso Cuaron). Neither is the owner of the property in question, creative hands aside. We're identifying the "owner", not someone who "created" anything. As for IMDb, it's an unreliable website, so I could care less what it says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well sorry, but i think you're wrong , the country of origin section is exactly that, the origin where he movie was made, created, because you can entirely make a movie in one country and a company like WB who is the distributor can be from a totaly different country. Which one of those 2 is the "origin"? Anyway, believe what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)

This thread is full of fail and shows a rather fundamental lack of understanding on the OP's part. Instead of blindly bulling forward with your own (misguided) opinions, at least try to understand and listen to the person who's attempting to explain to you. Anyways regardless if you understand or not, as Bignole mentioned, it is original research unless you have reliable sources backing up your assertions. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. Do you have a reliable source actually calling it a "British-American" film? BTW, please read the definition of a "distributor" and a "producer", because who distributes the film has nothing to do with who owns the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Who composed which part of Trailer No3?

So the question pertains to "Official Trailer 3" at YouTube. -Mardus (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Connections with 'Dark Knight' trilogy

'Man of Steel' is the first Superman film not to include 'Superman' in the title, just as 'The Dark Knight' was the equivalent for Batman. Furthermore, the film's producer, writer and composer worked on both. Is this connection notable? Could it be worked into the article? (Zedell (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

I don't see how without any direct commentary or reliable sources mentioning it...-- MisterShiney ✉ 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with and unsure how to locate Wiki policy on this, but does it have to when the facts are self-evident? Might it be said, very roughly, "As with Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', the film uses an alternate name for its superhero as the main title."? (Zedell (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

No, because you're applying the significance to the fact. That makes it original research. If no one knew about Nolan's Batman trilogy, or at least who he was and his level of involvement in the films then it would be insignificant to them. If it's insignificant then the question becomes, "why do we mention it?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is evident, then maybe it does not need to be stated so overtly. :) I've searched for interviews that talk about this film's title in comparison with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises but did not find anything. Maybe it is not much of a highlight for the media anymore; The Dark Knight was significant as a trailblazing title, but now it's become the norm. If we still want to look, maybe we could figure out what month this title was officially announced, and we can narrow Google search results to that month and year? EDIT: Looks like the title was announced in April 2011, but searching Google search results for that date range does not show any significant headlines. This makes the comparison, but it seems to be an outlier. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Erik. I've just been trying to perform the same research with much less success. That said, I suppose you're right in that it wouldn't be enough. No-one else appears to have made the connection, which is odd to me as it seems like an obvious one. Ah well. (Zedell (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC))

The reboot not includes Lex Luthor

Lex Luthor is not present in the movie Man of Steel (2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.64.150.137 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Batman and Spiderman, Superman too needs to try fighting various villains instead of being fixed to Luthor like in the previous films. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

World release

According to the Superman Homepage, the movie will have will have its world premiere in New York on Monday night, June 10, 2013. Should we write that in the article? Leader Vladimir (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Kal El

Why the reverts? That's his name is not not? If it is referred to in film it needs a place. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)-- MisterShiney ✉ 19:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's not a credited name, then it doesn't go next to "Superman" and "Clark Kent".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lately someone has been adding the plot summary before the film's release. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am going to open a discussion on this matter as a completely uninvolved user. If anyone wants to add their thoughts on this matter, please discuss here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss...among just us, because the ones adding the summary are primarily IP users and new editors who probably will not come to this talk page. ;D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protected. Admittedly, three days might be overkill, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The film comes out tomorrow at midnight, three days might just be a bit too many. || Tako (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. I've modified it to 1 day. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The same thing happened over on Star Trek Into Darkness following the release in the UK and the US had to wait. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the US they had a midnigh showing on Thursday also, just saying, it should be fine to add it back in. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be find for someone else to add a plot summary that is within the criteria of the MOS. Not that bloated thing that has been added previously.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jauerback, why is the article fully protected as opposed to semi-protected? Seems like the latter would have worked better with the various novice edits to the plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• More to the point why is it protected at all? According to Warner's release schedule the film opened in several South American markets yesterday and many Asian ones today, so the plot is publicly verifiable. I disapprove that editors from these countries are effectively being barred from adding a plot summary just because American and European viewers won't see it for a day or so as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ack, I retract my admonishment. It appears it was removed early on WP:COPYVIO grounds rather than verifiability concerns. If someone does come up with a reasonable plot summary on this talk page perhaps we can get the article unlocked and add it in? Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I chose full protection as one of the editors who was readding the plot summary was not a new user and would have been able to edit a semi-protected page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: June 13

Please undo these edits, as the incorrect placement of the unreferenced Box Office figure renders the URL link in the reference unusable. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Breaking a record in the Philippines

The Man of Steel set the record of "highest opening day gross" ever surfaced the Philippines' cinemas. With a breaking record of first day gross (69.52 Million Pesos/ $1.7 million) in 94% of all cinemas in the Philippines beats the previous record set by Iron Man 3 last April with 62 Million Pesos. Is this information significant since it has set a record in a specific country?

Sources: [Click the City http://www.clickthecity.com/movies/?p=19062] [Comic Book Movie.com http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman_movies/superman_the_man_of_steel/news/?a=81489] [ABS-CBN News http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/06/13/13/man-steel-shatters-ph-box-office-records] jmarkfrancia (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

Phillip Cu-Unjieng from the Philippine Star says "MAN OF STEEL is definitely worth the wait... A reboot with true vitality makes Man of Steel the great first film in what we can only hope heralds a new Superman franchise series."

Read the full review here - http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2013/06/14/953724/film-review-man-steel-reboot-iful-creatures jmarkfrancia (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pls add it to critical reception section if u find it useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomatometer

While the page is locked...don't forget to update the tomatometer in the reception section! It's up to 114 reviews and sank down to 58%, a rotten rating. Thanks guys!! Briguy7783 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Only a administrator can do it because it is fully protected. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

Update Reception section based on the above user's comments. || Tako (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

No negative/mixed reviews cited? That is not telling of the mixed reception it has received on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. There is bias with regards to the reviews for they were obviously cherry-picked to favor the positive. They are mostly niche websites that just happened to give Man of Steel rave reviews. Why quote Screencrush.com when one could cite a review from the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Chicago Sun-Times or the Washington Post from well known critics-- reviews that are actually published in print? Industry websites like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are also commonly cited in reviews in Wikipedia. This section is not balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikatastrophe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

Request to change status to "Pending changes protected" to eliminate vandalism

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued

It's a bit embarrassing that the critical reception is described as 'mixed to positive'--it's extremely negative. The editor of Rotten Tomatoes said he was shocked at how badly critics responded to this movie, and that's proof in itself that 'mixed to positive' is not a valid description of the reviews. Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything. It exists to provide reliable information, as free of opinions and bias as humanly possible. As it currently stands, this article does not do that.Xfpisher (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Xpfisher, I removed that passage. See the discussion below for reliable sources we can use to describe the overall reception. In addition, look at Metacritic and see its positive, mixed, and negative breakdown. Maybe we can use that too. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I thank you for correcting that, but one more thing must be done--Rotten Tomatoes has a policy of referring to films with less than 60% reviews rated 'fresh' as being 'rotten'. Man of Steel could, theoretically, still get to 'fresh' territory, but it's looking very unlikely now. It is 'rotten' according to the site being used as a source--and the editor of that site has given strong indications of bias, saying he disagrees with the strongly negative critical reaction, meaning that his assessment of the film isn't really indicative of the critical reaction as a whole (even many of the reviews rated 'fresh' are actually quite negative, and very few are wholly positive). It's a badly reviewed movie--all the more when you consider the huge studio muscle behind it, which is going to influence critics to pull their punches a bit (one reason why a film has to be at least 60% 'fresh' to avoid being 'rotten'). And it's standard procedure on Wikipedia film articles that refer to the 'Tomatometer' to report whether a film is 'fresh' or 'rotten'. The film doesn't have a "56% approval rating", according to RT--the film is rated 'rotten' on RT. Because for a film like this, it's actually rather hard to have that low a score.Xfpisher (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "approval rating" is still accurate, and not as pejorative as saying "fresh" or "rotten". "Approval" does not necessarily mean 100% positive, and it's a reflection of the percentage, and not of what the critics are specifically saying. We typically do not use terms like "rotten" or "fresh" because they don't really convey anything other than a personal choice in identifying approval of a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough--though in fact many Wikipedia articles that refer to Rotten Tomatoes do use the terminology popularized by that website--let's leave that aside for the moment. Here's a BETTER reviewed movie than Man of Steel, with the same director--a featured article on Wikipedia, no less--see how different it is? No doubt whatsoever that the critical consensus was highly (though not universally) negative. All sides are portrayed, without the false objectivity of making it seem like opinions truly divided--almost everybody knew it was a bad movie, some thought it was enjoyably bad. MOS is clearly not a critically applauded film, the world outside Wikipedia knows that and there's no harm in saying that. Why shouldn't this article aspire to the same standard as the FEATURED article on 300? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Reviews Xfpisher (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS is not thoroughly bad, it is just divided. The positive reviews and mixed reviews are balanced, maybe the mixed are just a bit more in number. But negative, there is little to none. Check metacritic and rotten tomatoes for more info. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then a featured article on Wikipedia incorrectly states that 300 is a badly reviewed film. Even though it was actually slightly better received than MOS. I'm sorry, but one can't help but think this article is being managed to promote a movie, as opposed to get the facts straight. It's been widely reported in the media that reviews have been very bad. That isn't a subject of controversy anywhere but here. Shameful.Xfpisher (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone should include the CinemaScore of A- which surveys viewers on opening night: http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-beginning-worldwide-release-record-opening-day-in-the-philippines/ Clearly the critics were wrong.Croqdot (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Croqdot

There's already a mention of the CinemaScore survey in the article, although it doesn't seem like it should be placed under the "Critical reception" section. GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just put it there. It's typically placed there, because it's the only thing (outside of box office) that gives us an audience reaction to the film, as they are the ones doing the grading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a very selective unscientific poll of people who tend not to be representative of the entire filmgoing audience--the real test of audience reaction is box office legs--Mr. Popper's Penguins got the same exact score as MOS. Btw, a WB exec told Deadline Hollywood that the Cinemascore was the audience thumbing their noses at the bad reviews--which is a clear admission that the reviews were much worse than they'd hoped for.Xfpisher (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion about what the exec said. In any case, CinemaScore polls a sample, which can help statistically. For example, The Purge had a monster opening weekend but a low CinemaScore grade, so in its second weekend, it has had a 75.6% drop seen here. What I mean is that we can report on both CinemaScore and the second-weekend drop (which is not solely limited to singular disappointment; there are also competitors to account for). Also, why has anyone not put any contextual prose in front of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic passages? We have sources from which we can describe the critics' consensus in words, not just numbers. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article just published about Cinemascore-- http://movies.yahoo.com/news/cinemascore-gets-studios-especially-counters-critics-045034413.html Please note that again we see the reviews to MOS referred to as bad--Cinemascore is a tool the studios use to try and say the critics are wrong, but as the guy who created Cinemascore is at pains to point out, it's not a random sampling--it's about 400 people who are willing to stop and fill out a poll, it's the opening night audience (which means they are much more likely than the average person to respond well to the film, because they were already sold on it), and it's really about whether they feel the movie lived up to the advance PR. If Mr. Popper's Penguins can get an A-, how much does an A- really mean? Not much. Not saying don't report it, but I am saying the more the studio talks up Cinemascore, the more you know they hated the reviews, and that means they really were bad. As to the next few weekends, we'll see.Xfpisher (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What contextual prose are you refering to, because we have the one from MetaCritic and we have the "consensus" from RT right after the percentage? I don't think we need an additional line, based on our interpretation, of "It received mixed, negative, or positive reviews", when we have information that says that already, as quoted from the other sites.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Xfpisher, are you arguing that sampling 400 people who chose to respond is not a random sample? By definition, that would be random because you aren't picking and choosing who can respond, you're asking everyone and these 400 people volunteered. That's rather random when it comes to demographics. With regard to them being "sold", how do you explain films that get a "D" or "F" rating? If people that went to the opening of a film were already "sold" on it, then you wouldn't get below maybe a "B" on film's CinemaScore. That doesn't happen. The scores for CinemaScore indicate the likelihood of audience members continuing to see the film. Films that receive approximately an "A" generally have repeat viewings and hold up over a longer period of time. That doesn't mean they will be box office smashes, but that they will consistently have an audience that attends them. To clarify further, if you look at Mr. Popper's Penguin's weekly grosses, the drop off from week 1 to week 2 is within the norm for a film that receives a grade of "A". Now, let's look at Friday the 13th, which had a grade of "B-" (I think it was a minus). It had an 80% drop off from week 1 to week 2. If you read about CinemaScore, that's close to be expected (though a little more than the average) when you're at that level. Audiences liked it initially, but it did not stand up to repeat viewings and did not have the word of mouth to attract new viewers each week. That is why CinemaScore is good reflection of audience opinion, because statistically it generally provides an expectation of how a film will ultimately do with audiences, as critical opinion does not influence as much as it used to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's really rare for major release films to even get a 'C' score. Certainly not films that had any kind of big PR machine behind them. Did you read the article, because it mentions that. Some films that will always be remembered as horrible got 'A' scores--the fact is that getting people to stop and talk to you as they're leaving a theater is not the same as calling them at home, using scientific polling techniques. This is not Nate Silver we're talking about here. I know you want to believe Cinemascore reflects general audience opinion--but the guy who runs it says that isn't really true, as you'd know if you'd read the article--I was quoting him.Xfpisher (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Man of Steel review section and other film review sections

Why is it that every time someone puts the film was "met with mixed reviews" it gets removed as a "personal observation", yet pretty much every other film with a page on wikipedia that has a similar (or higher) score on Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic score its pretty much standard to put it was "met with mixed reviews"? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

IP is referring to this by Bignole. Since the film has been out for some time, we can find a reference to provide context to lead the section. We could use Los Angeles Times or CBS News to this end. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead can quote MetaCritic, which uses those terms, but as far as an overall assessment, we should not be subjectively interpreting Rotten Tomatoe's scores. It also seems unnecessary to do in that section when we have both a percentage of approval and a collected consensus from RT that breaks it down for us.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bignole, above are the links I am referring to. We can use one of these reliable sources to provide context upfront instead of plunging the readers right into statistics. It would be a better summary and introduction to the reception section. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to how you're wanting to present this, because when I read those pages I don't read "reviews were negative" or "received poor reviews" or "received [fill in the blank". Unless I missed it completely when reading, but what I see is summaries of the critical reviews, in the same way that RT summarizes the reviews. CBS News says, ""Man of Steel" critics' reviews: Film wallows in sorrow more than soars", and LA Times says, "'Man of Steel' more solemn than super, reviews say", before they go on to summarize individual critical responses (like we do). What are you wanting to add that isn't already there? I don't think you can take either of those headlines, or the summaries below and interpret a "it received mixed, negative, etc." response, and to just add a summary to the beginning...well we have a summary after the percentages. It seems redundant to add another summary, or even worse, that we think readers are too dense to pick up on the fact that a 57% approval rating is not good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We can attribute a source in what they say about a film. For example, we could write, "The Los Angeles Times reported of the critics' perspective, '[Man of Steel] gets bogged down by its own gravity, and lacks the fun and light-heartedness of previous movie and TV versions.'" That is different information from the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. I would say that assessment is more authoritative than Rotten Tomatoes, considering the prominence of the Los Angeles Times. We can do something similar with other reliable sources that have provided such commentary. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for including that, but I guess I don't see why it has to be the first thing there. It seems like either we're going to give preference to LA Times or CBS News, or we're going to open the door for more and more of these summaries and we're going to have an entire paragraph devoted to people's interpretation of the critics and it will bog down the overall section. I mean, I'm a data person and I prefer reading data before I read summaries of opinions that have already been converted to data for ease of reading. It's easier, to me, to see quickly that a film has an X percentage of approval and then read summaries, than to wade through summaries before I get to the basic data of critical response. I'm speaking for myself though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Without weighing in on whether or not to use a "mixed reviews" lead-in summary, I state that I'm sure that some of our readers view a 57% (currently 56%) approval rating as good. It's at least decent in most people's eyes. And that's because it equates to "mixed reviews," leaning slightly more toward the positive side since it's not too close 50%, and does not equate to "mostly negative reviews" or "almost mostly negatively reviews." It's also close to a Rotten Tomatoes Certified Fresh rating, considering that 60 and up is Certified Fresh. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm against starting critical analysis in the Critical reception section with a summary from a newspaper or news site, no matter how prominent, over Rotten Tomatoes; we don't do that for other film articles, and I don't see why we should do that with this one. And we certainly don't need editors starting to pick their favorite summary from a newspaper or news site to use as the lead-in sentence for film articles. In my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is more authoritative when it comes to relaying consensus about a film. And the Los Angeles Times summary is already covered by other text in the Critical reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That stated, I do feel that there should be some sort of summary in the Critical reception section about how critics generally felt that this film lacked what they feel is some essential lightness and fun. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are supposed to choose such sources over Rotten Tomatoes. MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "The use of print reviews is encouraged. Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." So it is much more appropriate to say how the Los Angeles Times reported the consensus than how Rotten Tomatoes did it. Such a source is more authoritative. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are only standard go-tos because not every film gets that kind of recap in a periodical. Here, it is the case, and it especially allows us to provide context rather than just numbers. I do not see why you are talking about "favorite summaries" like it is an actual thing. If it is a reliable source, then the commentary is absolutely valid. If commentary is conflicting or does not overlap, then we combine them. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The guideline you cited does not state that we are supposed to choose such sources over Rotten Tomatoes. And if we're actually supposed to do that, it, as you know, is not standard practice. And thank goodness that it is not, given what Bignole stated above about "open[ing] the door for more and more of these summaries and we're going to have an entire paragraph devoted to people's interpretation of the critics" and what I stated above about not needing "editors starting to pick their favorite summary from a newspaper or news site to use as the lead-in sentence for film articles." If it were standard practice to use a newspaper or news site source as the initial summary in the Critical reception section, that would mean it is a personal judgment -- which source to use, which source is good enough to use, which source best summarizes the critics' consensus, and so on. It would be a much debated matter across film articles, just like some other mattes are. By contrast, it being standard practice to use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as the initial summaries is not a personal judgment. Los Angeles Times, which is an author's summary of what they believe to be critical consensus, is not at all more authoritative than Rotten Tomatoes, a site composed of many critics, when it comes to relaying consensus about a film. Nor does it hold the same or close to the same weight among critics when it comes to critical analysis of a film. I mentioned "favorite summaries," obviously, because a person can usually find a summary review that goes along with their viewpoint, no matter how inaccurate the summary is. I've read plenty of summary reviews that contrast one another with regard to a same film and show that people have different interpretations of what critics felt. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Smallville?

Was Smallville actually named in the film? It is named prominently in the synopsis and elsewhere in the article, but I don't remember Clark's home location being specified any further than Kansas in the film. U-Mos (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Smallville was not named in the film. I removed it from the plot yesterday, but someone's restored it since. Fans have a tendency to take information from the comics and plug it straight into the film articles, regardless of how misleading this is. It's Thanos / the Cosmic Cube all over again. —Flax5 15:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Although not specifically mentioned as "Smallville" in the battle scenes in the town there is a giant water collector thing with Smallville written over it. So it is featured in the film. MisterShiney ✉ 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MisterShiney is correct. On a water tower, the word Smallville is written across it; I mentioned this to Bignole not too long ago when we were discussing the film. If WP:Reliable sources also describe the Clark Kent of Man of Steel growing up in Smallville, then there isn't a problem mentioning in this article that he does. For reference here on the talk page, this is the edit showing what U-Mos removed with regard to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, written on the water tower and I believe on a t-shirt somewhere in the film as well. Plus numerous sources refer to it as Smallville. Unless the film makes an effort to point out that it isn't Smallville, I think it should be left in. WP:UCS. Also, the "in order to gain access to important places without arousing suspicion" bit at the end seems highly speculative. SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@SoSaysChappy: - The front of the Sears building had "Smallville, Kansas" on it. Also, at the end of the film, when Clark describes his motivation for joining the Daily Planet, my recollection is that the "gain access" was the spirit of what he said. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I guess I must have missed that dialogue. And I'm starting to agree that, after one mention of "Smallville", "Kansas" would be better in subsequent mentions, in the spirit that Wiki is supposed to be more accessible to the casual reader. SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's in the film, fair enough, though it feels strange that they avoided the town name in dialogue. —Flax5 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the naming of the town in the character bio, but not in the synopsis as Kansas is the dominant description of Clark's home scenes' location. U-Mos (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jersey premiere

I don't know if it's worth mentioning on the page, but Henry Cavill is originally from the island of Jersey, and a red carpet premiere was held here with Henry attending on Friday 16th July (two days after the UK premiere). Admittedly that was also the UK general release date, but it was a pretty big deal as far as Jersey goes. Russell Crowe and Amy Adams were also present. 212.9.31.12 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source detailing the event, there is no reason it cannot be included in the Release section. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fans Vs Critics

Hi fellow editors, do we need to mention a bit on this "cyber war" that appears to be errupting betwen critics and fan reviews on the internet? A cursory look through IMDB made me snigger somewhat. Critics seemed to pan it yet the overall audience view is that this film is top notch. Any views? SH 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reliable sources covering such clashing. This article mentions CinemaScore's report that audiences gave the film an "A" grade, which is a good contrast to the aggregate scores from critics. I think that's enough until we can see specific coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This any good? Thanks SH 13:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary, part 2

In trying to keep the plot summary from gradually becoming too bloated, but before I trim some bits that have been added recently, here's what I would suggest doing to the current summary [7] per WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMCOPY:

• Remove "naturally-conceived" to describe Jor-El's newborn son. A reader would not realize why this is pointed out unless you go into detail about how Krypton has a law against this and they are a society of strictly genetically-engineered people. This would make the summary run too long.
• Remove "for stealing the codex", or re-word this sentence somehow. It makes it sound like that murdering Jor-El for any other reason would have been ok and would not have warranted banishment.
• Stating that Zod and his crew escape during the first mention of Krypton's explosion. That way, it won't have to be said that Krypton explodes again later in the summary.
• Removing "by Kryptonian soldiers". Zod is captured. Point is made. We don't need to know it was by such minor characters. It might not even be necessary to say he is captured. Being banished implies he was captured.
• Remove "by the ship's automated defenses". Mentioning the injury explains how Lois and Clark meet, which leads to her realzing he has superhuman abilities, then becoming obsessed with writing about him, and so on. Not knowing how she got injured does not hinder this.
• The colony worlds subplot isn't essential to piecing together a plot summary. Zod ultimately decides to transform Earth, which is all the summary really requires.
• Put "will suffer the consequences" in quotes or re-word to clarify. As it is, it's too vague.
• Re-word the final sentence. It makes it sound like "bespectacled reporter" is a job title.

Thoughts? SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up the plot myself (not having read this), and it seems my changes are mostly similar to the ones you suggested. At the same time, I've put a streamlined version of my above suggestion in comments there. If the changes I've made get reverted, feel free to discuss per BRD and have your's proposed as an alternative. Whatever due process exists, your changes and mine are generally in line with each other, so either we're both wrong, or they were necessary.  drewmunn  talk  06:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For this article, I don't mind too much having a synopsis-type plot summary, which is what you two have instated, but, as you may know, Wikipedia plot summaries are usually given more leeway than that...such as the current plot summary of the WP:GA film article The Dark Knight (film). Even when that Plot summary section used to be a tad bit longer than it is now, the length was accepted; I see that Sonicdrewdriver (drewmunn) has also been working on that article (I don't know for how long). Also, I'm sure that abiding by and citing WP:FILMPLOT will usually hold more weight with editors than abiding by and citing WP:PLOTSUM...considering that the former is a guideline and the latter is an essay. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work on plot summaries before, mostly to get them shortened to within the guidelines, and I've found that some films' plots are better described in the form that this article is than the alternatives. However, I don't particularly like the synopsis format, and use it only because the pre-existing summary is badly written and I don't have the time or disposition to do a complete rewrite. In this case, I feel the article is better served with the current option than the historical offering. I usually find the synopsis style works best on new-ish films, as a more detailed form is quite often exploited by passing editors with little knowledge of the guidelines, and a pages-long report of every time a character blinks is produced for no apparent reason. As a film matures, editors usually find the equilibrium between synopsis and summary, but until then, synopsis is informative and less susceptible to GF bloating.  drewmunn  talk  13:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The current Plot summary section is a mix between synopsis and summary; SoSaysChappy's synopsis version (that SoSaysChappy tweaked soon afterward) was as well. I'm not fond of synopsis format for summarizing the plot in Wikipedia film articles either, and agree that synopsis format is better for new or new-ish films. It's especially better for films that haven't been released yet, but the full plot isn't known to most people in those cases anyway. And by "historical offering," I assume that you mean "traditional offering." Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it was my convoluted way of saying "that which was there before"!  drewmunn  talk  17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013

There should be a paragraph about the post-conversion that was done by Legend3D. Especially since 80% of the screens were 3D screens.

PascaleMarchand (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't realy need a paragraph; it's nothing special. At best, the sentence "The film was converted to 3D by Legend3D" would suffice, although something of that style already exists.  drewmunn  talk  17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013

1billion

Mafiaeditsog (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"[T]he request must be of the form "please change X to Y". DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Movie vs film

This might be a longstanding debate but according to Answers.com, there is a difference between a movie and a film. Movies are captured and shot through photographic film. In the US, they are used as interchangeable terms, so it will not cause confuse if we use them as such.

• A movie refers to most major, commercial motion pictures aimed at a broad viewing audience (in the hopes of making a profit).
• A film is commonly applied to movies of an artistic or educational nature not expected to have broad, commercial appeal.

I started this topic because people keep replacing the worlds "movie" and "film" all over the article multiple times. So, which term would be more accurated to describe Man of Steel? Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Film" is preferred over "movie" for general use on Wikipedia. It's been that way for quite some time. Exceptions would be terms like monster movies in their full use. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, film is more widely used, as part of the name of categories for example. I would say that film can be used more broadly than movie. Documentary films aren't called documentary movies, as far as I know. Danrok (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting topic for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Film" has generally been considered a more professional way of saying "movie" within an article, and we strive for the most professional writing. "Movie" comes across as amateurish, IMO, almost kid-like. I say "movie" when I talk to my friends, but I generally write "film" when I discuss something in literature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, and had commented on the matter at his talk page (our statements about the matter are near the end of that discussion). Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple conclusion: "Movie" is an informal term for "Film", and must not be used on formal occasions. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's just a simple opinion. See eg Chamber's Dictionary:

movie noun (movies) especially US 1 a cinema film. British equivalent film. Also called picture (noun 9). 2 (especially the movies) a cinema films in general; b the industry that produces them • He didn't make it in the movies. Also as adj • movie-maker • movie star. ETYMOLOGY: 1912: a shortening of moving picture.

They're entirely equivalent in meaning whatever you may feel. Actually, "movie" is a bit more logical, as it derives from "moving picture" which will always be true. "Film" however refers to a technology that is on its way out. (Though this "film" actually was shot on film, according to the article.) The choice is arbitrary, and you'll never get agreement on which is more correct. Just say "film" is the current preference and leave it at that. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact it should probably be "video" to describe the nature of the stimulus, with "film" being used to describe the medium and "movie" to describe videos of the time period before full-digital production (suggesting it's archaic, especially if it's tied to the novelty of a "moving picture"). But the status quo is that just about every Wikipedia title that I've seen that refers to a video and attempts to disambiguate uses the word "film". Inasmuch as Wikipedia is an industry, "film" seems to exist as the industry standard. Morfusmax (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In the industry (and I believe life), "video" is anything recorded or transmitted through a video tape, so this would not cover this article (unless you record it onto a VHS or Betamax). "Film" is usually more accepted as a formal term than "movie", although the technical term would be "motion picture". A film is, by definition, something committed to celluloid, which Man of Steel is. A movie is an Americanism, and a colloquial one at that. Its use reminds me of a YouTube clip, although it seems impossible to find (assembled masses, do your work). It's made by a video production company, and they open with "I'm X, and I'm Y, and we make movies!" It's an atrocious example of badly-performed chroma-keying and early 2000s effects, and any time I read "movie" in an otherwise notable document/article, I can't help think back to that... Anyway, the moral of the story is that, while "motion picture" is technically correct and ''video" is not, "film" is more accepted by style and writing guides than "movie".  drewmunn  talk  17:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Braverman

Did he actually appear or should I totally remove that he appears in the film here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, he was the bully who pushed Clark over and Clark didn't kill him (apparently that's character development).  drewmunn  talk  10:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That's such such a major role. JK lol. Also I might have skipped through this but why don't I notice a mention of Mackenzie Gray as Jax-Ur on this article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Feel free to add...  drewmunn  talk  15:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jax-Ur was mentioned in the cast list for a full hour, before someone removed it. || Tako (bother me) || 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If that was before the movie was playing then the editor had good reason. The source just said it was rumored and it cited comicbookmovie.com. Not really a reliable source...but now it's official in the movie I do believe. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It actually seems to be a day after the release. I am not sure why it was removed but I boldly added it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

He was in the movie, so that's all that really matters. Maybe someone felt is was a spoiler (although how & why, I'm not sure, and they'd also have to not understand WP:SPOILER, but there we go).  drewmunn  talk  15:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)