Talk:The Batman (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"The Batman" title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The page can be moved if a different title is announced in the future. -2pou (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't this be titled "Untitled Batman solo film" since we don't have an 'official title to go off of? Npamusic (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not the “official” title, but we cannot name the article “Untitled Batman solo film”. That sounds more like the name for a section on another article which relates to the movie. We will have to stick with “The Batman” until we get the “official” title. If we get into an argument about whether the title should be “Untitled Batman solo film” or not, the article for the upcoming 2021 film might as well have to be deleted. 2601:205:4100:AB88:8804:CCB5:9A64:E42E (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Reeves said that The Batman is the current title, which may end up changing, but that doesn't mean it's not the official title. JOEBRO64 18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In this interview, Affleck says, "At least that’s what we’re going with now [...] I might change it." Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That was on the 3rd October 2016. In this from a later date Affleck backtracked on his comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Why this page is not moved to mainspace?Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Castings

With every new piece of casting, director Matt Reeves would take to Twitter to confirm. So far he has not done so for Colin Farrell and Jayme Lawson. It’s not to say we absolutely need him to confirm each casting but last report on Farrell was he was only in negotiations, and being tossed into a quick sentence in an article about a different casting I don’t feel is strong enough, and with Lawson her casting hasn’t been even reported by more reliable trades sources like THR or Deadline. That’s my reasoning for excluding them at this time. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: repinging as I messed up the name. Rusted AutoParts 00:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I get what you're saying with Farrell, but Lawson was verified by TheWrap and Collider, which I think are reliable when it comes to this (I know they're not as reputable as THR and Deadline, but IMO they're almost as good). I don't really see why we need to wait for Reeves to confirm casting before adding them. By that logic we should remove Dano and Turturro even though they're officially signed on for the film as well. JOEBRO64 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Reeves has confirmed Dano and Turturro, though. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, he did? Must not have seen it. Regardless, my point still stands—we shouldn't have to wait until Reeves confirms it. Reliable sources are saying she's in the film, and if they update their reports then we can easily just update the article. JOEBRO64 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I won’t press this further but there is still some hesitation on my end. As I stated Reeves isn’t a mandatory confirmation but it has certainly aided in making inclusions easier. Just makes one question a casting announcement when Reeves doesn’t adjacently confirm it despite doing so for others. Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Variety says filming has begun

I'm adding this here instead of the article because it seems controversial to me. Filming has begun according to Variety's report on Sarsgaard's casting. This is surprising because it hasn't been corroborated by any other source, nor was this previously indicated to be the plan. Deadline reported multiple times in October that filming was scheduled to begin in January 2020. [1] [2] I think we should wait for further confirmation as this may be a mistake. Prefall 23:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it may be a mistake. The Variety article wasn't supported by the many recent announcements made by Warner Bros, DC, and Matt Reeves regarding the filming start date. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Filming/move to mainspace

As noted by @Prefall: there were reports that production began in December 2019. However, as of today[3] filming has officially commenced per set photos. Because of this, this article needs to be moved to mainspace.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Much better sources are needed here. Not tweets or fansites. Rusted AutoParts 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to wait to move it until a reliable source has confirmed filming has officially commenced. JOEBRO64 00:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: and @TheJoebro64:; there are now videos taken of filming being done on-set. This, coupled with the photos from yesterday AND Variety{{}}'s statement last month - this article needs to be moved to the mainspace now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Give us a reliable source then. I’ve already stated the Variety source you keep pointing to was just pre production shooting. Give us a source from this month that’s reliable that says filming has started. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

From the talk section on castings, it seems like we take Twitter announcements into account, so I found a tweet from actor Jeffrey Wright stating that he began filming on the film: https://mobile.twitter.com/jfreewright/status/1213684364967645184 Cardei012597 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many news sources that even discussed this tweet in their articles. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Should I also bring in the news sources that discuss this tweet? Its quite obvious what Wright meant by "Woke up jet lagged at 10pm thinking I was late. 4:45am now. Off to Gotham.🦇" Cardei012597 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources. Not unverified blogs or fansites. Variety (one that proved principal photography), Hollywood Reporter, Deadline. Warner Bros themselves if they put a press release out through BusinessWire. Rusted AutoParts 19:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Screen Rant reliable? https://screenrant.com/batman-movie-jeffery-wright-commissioner-gordon-gotham-filming/ Cardei012597 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I also found a Slash Film article, is this good? https://www.slashfilm.com/the-batman-has-begun-filming/ Cardei012597 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Should I add these citations to the page? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Are the two citations reliable enough to move The Batman into the mainspace? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts:, are Screen Rant and Slash Film reliable news sources? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly consider those reliable for citing things like these. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Both news sources are cited many times in this article, especially Slash Film. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

On top of this, @Rusted AutoParts: there are set videos which have found their way online. This is confirmation. You cannot pick and choose what you consider to be reliable. As @Cardei012597: pointed out both "Screen Rant" and "Slash Film" are cited variously on other articles.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And stop taking people not agreeing with you as a personal slight or me "picking and choosing" what's reliable. Tweets aren't confirmation. Studio confirmation is confirmation. Rusted AutoParts 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not just on other articles, Screen Rant and Slash Film are used many times on this page, The Batman. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Additionally, here's SyFy Wire (also reliable) confirming the news. They also point out that Matt Reeves has shared Jeffrey Wright's post regarding filming commencement.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. Also, Wright didn't say filming began at all, you're concluding his meaning. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I only want to know why these two citations can't be used to announce filming has begun. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

They are fine as supporting cites, not a primary source by itself. The Eternals uses Entertainment Weekly as it's primary citation. EW, THR, Variety and Deadline are much stronger sources to use. Rusted AutoParts 20:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cardei012597, those sources can indeed be used. They are reliable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Screen Rant, Slash Film, and SyFy Wire are all reliable souces. Not to mention the set videos...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applied to your whine about other articles citing the sources you insist are reliable. Rusted AutoParts 20:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Syfy Wire states: "The upcoming Batman film from writer/director Matt Reeves has begun its production"... that's declarative confirmation, User:Rusted AutoParts. Also, I have never stated that your disagreement is a personal slight.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You're clearly being defensive. You're saying i'm "picking and choosing" what's reliable when i'm going by the practices utilised on these articles for years. Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Screen Rant and /Film appear on almost any article regarding superhero films. Syfy is clearly reliable, why not add it and just replace it with a source from Variety or THR when they report it as well? El Millo (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little off topic, moving towards WP:Bludgeon. Lets move back a bit, calm down, and just discuss the Slash Film and Screen Rant articles. Now, it is fair to assume that some unreliable blogs have claimed filming has begun, but I believe the reliable sources at Slash Film and Screen Rant are reporting real news, discussing filming in London on The Batman. Every bit of news, for every popular topic, always comes from a mixture of unreliable and reliable sources. Now, if we can just discuss and read thoroughly the reliable sources, hopefully we can maintain a more impartial assessment on the situation. Ok? Cardei012597 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a friendly tip, there are many facts on The Batman page that are only supported by Slash Film, like "Later that month, Giacchino confirmed that he had already finished writing the main theme because he was so excited to do so." I am just a little confused on why some facts can be added based only on Slash Film, but not others. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear from today's activities that filming has begun—what I saw yesterday was just photos of on-set props and it appeared unclear if they were filming or just prepping. Enough reliable sources have reported on it—though, I'll admit I'm annoyed that top sources like THR, Variety, Deadline, or Reeves himself have not acknowledged it. Prefall 22:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also annoyed too that the top sources have remained silent on the matter. I believe the film has started filming, with the reliable sources collected. I think its time to move The Batman to the mainspace. I will let someone else make the move, though. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support moving to mainspace, I mean if The Suicide Squad already have their own article due their current production status, so should The Batman. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've completed the move. As I am not watching this article regularly, if there are any issues regarding this, please ping me. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

DCEU

How is this film apart of the DCEU? It's a different Alfred, a different Gordon, none of the DCEU producers are involved, so I ask what about this makes it still in the DCEU. Rusted AutoParts 03:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s a reboot, not for the entire DCEU, but for the franchise’s incarnation of Batman. Because this is a reboot, things are starting all over, and will be different. It is a soft reboot, like Bumblebee, though. 2601:205:4100:AB88:8804:CCB5:9A64:E42E (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See the recent discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe#RfC: Should the untitled Batman (2021) film be listed as part of the DCEU?. Most agreed that Reeves' statement that it's set in the DCEU is the only definitive information we have currently. Also, this can be a reboot and still be in the DCEU if WB wants it to be. Prefall 03:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

But it’s a now outdated statement given the drastic overhauls to who’s involved in the film. Rusted AutoParts 04:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it's still all we have one way or another. Prefall 04:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I just find it a bit potentially misleading considering the context of when he said those remarks. One was when Affleck was still involved and pre-Justice League. The other doesn’t exactly mention DCEU, but the DC Universe. That could be construed different ways but none in a definitive one. Rusted AutoParts 04:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Deadline source from today that refers to this film as “the first iteration of that franchise”. Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Deadline previously said this film is the first of a planned trilogy, which is likely what they're referring to. Prefall 20:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the Penguin was supposed to appear in Birds of Prey but didn't to avoid conflicts with The Batman. That may not mean anything, but I think WB wouldn't have done that if The Batman was separate from the DCEU, as they clearly had no problem doing it with Joker. JOEBRO64 11:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m seeing where that originated from. A tweet from a The Wrap reporter that hasn’t been substantiated from what I can see. Could it also not be fairly assumed if they did pull Penguin from BoP that it was from a wish to not make viewers confused seeing two different Penguins? I figured the crux of why this film was still labelled DCEU was because of two Reeves quotes from two years ago. This tweet from the Wrap guy doesn’t feel valid. Rusted AutoParts 12:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Forbes' Mark Hughes (whose reporting has appeared in a a number of publications, including THR) said in January 2019 that the Penguin was cut and replaced with Black Mask specifically so he could be introduced in The Batman instead. I know this is SYNTHy, but given this and Reeves' comments saying that it will still be connected to the DCEU, I think there's more weight to suggest this is still the case (until stated otherwise). Also, just because some roles are being recast doesn't mean it's in a different universe (for instance, Batman Forever replaced both Batman and Two-Face with different actors, one of whom was a different ethnicity, but was still set in the same universe as its predecessors). JOEBRO64 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if this particular work from him appeared in THR I’d be more agreeable but in general Forbes isn’t the greatest resource to tap into, so I don’t feel the Penguin news is usable in deciding if this is DCU or DCEU. I also don’t really feel the Batman Forever comparison works that great either. It’s true they recast Two-Face in a drastic way and it was still in the same universe as the Burton films but it’s easier to buy those being in the same universe as other actors or crew from the Burton movies returned for Forever (Pat Hingle, Michael Gough, Burton as producer). Here is basically an all new crew. Affleck is out, Snyder, Roven or Johns aren’t producing anymore. There’s been a stark creative change towards this film that for me makes the earlier Reeves comments outdated and needing to be better verified now that the context of his comments have altered. This feels reminiscent of the confusion surrounding the whole Dark Universe franchise. Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Should this statement "it is intended to be the tenth film in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU)" perhaps be replaced with "it was originally intended to be the tenth film in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU)" or "some people speculate that the film is intended to be the tenth film in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU)"? 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.127.101 (talk)

No, the film has not been officially stated to be separate from the DCEU. There have been recent announcements that the film is indeed an installment in the DCEU. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you link those sources please? Rusted AutoParts 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This came directly from this page's 'Future' section: In November 2019, Kroll and Brent Lang of Variety reported that key cast members are signed on to reprise their roles in future DCEU films.1

Also, there hasn't been a confirmation that the film is separate from the DCEU. Shouldn't we wait until Reeves or Warner Bros/DC confirm its not part of the DCEU. However, I do agree the film MIGHT be separate from the DCEU from the casting of James Gordon. Jeffrey Wright in this film is of a different racial background from J. K. Simmons in Justice League. Having said this, we still need confirmation from Reeves and/or Warner Bros. that this film will indeed be separate from the DCEU. Even if my above citation isn't accepted, we still need confirmation. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That Variety source doesn’t really work towards this though considering Affleck got recast and thus not retained, and the other recastings as well. It confirms the DCEU is still alive but it doesn’t confirm this movie is DCEU. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I think its fair to say we should wait until Reeves and/or Warner Bros confirm, through a reliable news source, that The Batman is separate from the DCEU. It really is just guess work or assumptions that the film is no longer part of the DCEU. We should wait for confirmation to be absolutley certain, agree? Cardei012597 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely feel it necessary to contextualize Reeves’s quotes, because they both came prior to the January 2019 confirmation that Ben Affleck was leaving the role and film. I’d be able to feel more comfortable leaving it until Reeves spoke on this again, but the fact his more recent quote by itself doesn’t really bolster the DCEU claim anyway, and the quotes predating the official departure of Affleck, I still believe it’s better to not have the connection in the article, at least in the lead section anyway. Rusted AutoParts 21:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand you point, but we need a recent announcement indicating if it is or it isn't part of the DCEU. We just don't have any citations, specific announcements, that confirm The Batman is no longer part of the DCEU. I believe its very likely the film is no longer in the DCEU, but I can be wrong because I don't have a recent announcement/confirmation from DC or Reeves that states this issue. It really is just guess work and assumptions. It might no longer be part of the DCEU, but I don't feel too comfortable to remove the DCEU connections until after an official announcement is shared that states the film is separate. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There’s just too much reasonable doubt for me to agree. Also, here’s a Deadline article that states “This film will in no way carry on the work that Ben Affleck did as the older Batman in Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League.” We don’t need a direct Reeves or WB comment, we just need a reliable source that demonstrates it’s not DCEU. Which this one does. Rusted AutoParts 22:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That citation could be interpreted in many ways. It could indicate that The Batman is a prequel, without the involvement of Ben Affleck. That doesn't specifically mean it is separate from the DCEU. There are prequel films to franchises, but are still connected. I do, however, agree that the film is likely to not exist in the DCEU, only due to the casting of James Gordon, for the above reason. There isn't a definitive recent answer on if it is or is not in the DCEU. Its ambiguous, ill-defined, and not clear or concise. I am not really sure on which way to take the situation, keep the DCEU texts or leave them off, as there really isn't a recent definitive answer. I think its possible The Batman could become part of DC Black, their recent separate stand-alone film series, but as I've said, I am not sure. I don't know what course is the best route to take for The Batman and the DCEU, as I doubt many could agree on a consensus, due to a lack of recent confirmation on the matter. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Todd Phillips said WB decided to not go forward with the DC Black label. [4] But, from the sounds of it, that was before Joker released and grossed $1 billion, so maybe they'll change their minds again. Prefall 23:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've said this a few times, but this can be a reboot and still be in the DCEU. There is nothing stopping WB from throwing out the previous Batman continuity and starting over. I'll also reiterate that I don't think this film will be in the DCEU, but for now, we only have one reliable, definitive statement, and it's from Reeves in 2017. It's been a year since Affleck officially dropped out and no reliable source has said this Batman won't eventually connect to anything—something that was consistently made clear when Joker was in production. Prefall 23:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The situation is just a little confusing, as the film went through several major changes over the past 3 years. Its also confusing that Reeves and DC never confirmed, after all the changes, that the film will continue to be in the DCEU. Reeves' The Batman is a different film, from Affleck's original script and work. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The intense confusion is why the DCEU connection should not be retained for now. Primarily due to the fact that the primary sources confirming it was part of it are now three years old, and the production had undertaken mass changes since. It for me is potentially irresponsible. At the very least the lead should not include it, and maybe have it noted that it’s connection to the DCEU is no longer clear. Rusted AutoParts 00:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it best to wait for confirmation from Reeves and DC? Granted, its a little odd that they haven't denied or confirmed anything about the film's inclusion in the DCEU when Pattinson was cast or when filming began. I believe they will confirm or deny its status in the DCEU at some point in the future, but its just peculiar that an announcement wasn't released sooner. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We don’t really need a direct Reeves/WB statement. There is enough sources to suggest that the DCEU is unclear, and it should be highlighted as such. If it’s to be in the lead it should be rephrased a bit: “the film was intended to be part of the DCEU, however with the departure of Affleck the connection is no longer clear” for example (definitely could be written better). Rusted AutoParts 00:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the statement to say that "it was developed as" a DCEU film, which IMO implies that it may no longer be the case. We still need to wait for concrete confirmation that it will not be in the DCEU though. Reeves mostly finished the script in September 2018, just a month after he said it would still be connected to the DCEU, and plans to usher out Affleck were already planned by July 2017, as THR reported. JOEBRO64 00:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Best way to put it for now. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 23

26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"In November 2019, Kroll and Brent Lang of Variety reported that key cast members are signed on to reprise their roles in future DCEU films" - Given that the article this statement is sourced to (in Variety) doesn't use the term "DCEU" nor the term "Extended Universe", shouldn't it just say "in future DC films"? Otherwise, it sounds as though it means more than it actually does. 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.21.251 (talk)

We shouldn't completely rule out the possibility that The Batman could be set before the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, making Pattison's version merely a younger version of Ben Affleck's Batman. It's true that J. K. Simmons and Jeremy Irons have been replaced by Jeffrey Wright and Andy Serkis, but actor changes have happened in film industry before and sometimes they have included skin color change. Of course we still need reliable information from Warner Bros., Matt Reeves or someone else who is involved in the production of the film, but I'm just reminding people that any information outside of what is acceptable in Wikipedia's policy shouldn't be used as a way jump into conclusions. So right now, I think we should only consider the film as part of DCEU because Reeves' last comments say so. CAJH (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Although, in this case the "information outside of what is acceptable in Wikipedia's policy" I'm talking about is merely the younger ages and different skin colors of the new actors. CAJH (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Deadline previously reported that "This film will in no way carry on the work that Ben Affleck did as the older Batman in Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League." [5] Plus every reliable source has constantly referred to it as a reboot. If this film ends up in the DCEU, it's retconning everything with Affleck. Prefall 21:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That citation you provide Prefall could also be interpreted as events, work, and ideas from older Ben Affleck Batman would not matter in a film set decades earlier, like this upcoming film. Future movie events rarely impact a prequel story because in a prequel the events of a future film obviously haven't happened yet. So, we can also infer that Justice League will definitely not be a thing in the new film because it hasn't happened yet. I think the citation can be interpreted as the upcoming film either being separate from the DCEU OR events in the Justice League DCEU don't exist/matter yet because The Batman is set many decades before BVS. The quote "This film will in no way carry on the work that Ben Affleck did as the older Batman in Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League" could mean either of the two. Of course, events in Ben Affleck Batman can't be addressed in the story of a straight forward prequel. With all of the recent sources, I think it is still a bit unclear on whether the film is guaranteed a DCEU prequel or a regular solo Batman film. It really could be either one. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Hamada just said it’s a new earth separate from the DCEU Ms8763 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The multiverse means that they could eventually cross over into the DCEU world idk if it is right to pull from the DCEU page yet no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.111.51 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Poster

Should I Upload Camera Test Photo? Mr.sandippaul (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the camera test photo is NOT a free image. Here, on Wikipedia, we only allow free images to be uploaded, NOT images owned and under copyright. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

References right next to character in Cast section

@TheJoebro64: Why should we need the reference to be right next to the name of the character if it's going to be further ahead in the same line? And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid refutation to citing the existence of another article in all cases. Almost all MCU film articles are good articles, and they're as similar as it gets to this one. They're valid examples that go against "Sources need to be right after the actor and who they're playing for verifiability reasons". El Millo (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I still think they should be right after in accordance with WP:V. They're citing two different things. One is the actor playing the character, and the other is the character's bio. JOEBRO64 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But there's no need to. If you have two statements one right after the other that use the same source, you can put it just one time at the end of the second sentence and it will be correct.

Peter Sarsgaard as Gil Colson:^[21] Gotham's district attorney.^[21]

This looks excessive to me. El Millo (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

Filming was expected to resume in July 2020, but it didn't. 216.154.30.200 (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo

Hey, I can’t edit it myself because the article is locked but there is a typo under “Spin-off Series”: The series was intended to expand ont he universe of the film and its exploration of Gotham City corruption, with Reeves and Winter executive producing the series alongside Daniel Pipski, Adam Kassan, and Dylan Clark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.135.10 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mattson's Tomlin writing credit?

Since I am currently browsing on phone, I can't tell if it is mentioned within the article that Tomlin's writing credit has been removed (due to unknown reasons). I'm fairly confident it is included in the article though. I also believe there should be an extra footnote within the "Written By" column in the infobox explaining this. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the Pre-production section. Because he's not credited, at least in the trailer's description and the official website, we don't include him in the infobox or the lead section yet. —El Millo (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So then, this technically would count as a confirmation that his credits have been removed? I think it may be obvious, but I think adding a footnote to the writers section in the infobox will help readers know his credit was removed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because he was never credited in the first place. We have to wait for a full poster, another trailer, or the finished film to see if he's credited or not. —El Millo (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If he is never actually credited then he should just be mentioned where he is in the production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

3 personas?

According to Jeffrey Wright, Pattinson creates 3 distinct personas for the role. Is this metaphorical or an actual part of the film (perhaps both)? Should this be mentioned in the article? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the personas he mentions is Pattinson himself, so he is just saying that the actor has created separate personas for Bruce Wayne and Batman which I don't think we really need to mention. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

New reshoots?

I saw that apparently, Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne/Batman) and Colin Farrell are heading to Glasgow for addition reshoots of the film. In addition to this, they are also reportedly going to York for extra reshoots. It is also reported that reshoots are expected to conclude in mid-July. I was just wondering if these reports were true and if they should be added to the article.

Sources: 1. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/robert-pattinson-colin-farrell-head-24357381

2. https://screenrant.com/batman-movie-robert-pattinson-reshoots-film-july/

-Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw there will a little bit of errors, which I fixed. I was wondering if we could separate the reshoots into another paragraph. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by errors, the paragraph is basically the same as what I added. And it should not be separated into its own paragraph because that would mean there would be a paragraph with just this in it: Con O'Neill was revealed to be appearing in the film in June 2021. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@adamstom97 Yep, that's exactly what I mean. I think we have clarification that the Reshoots are a separate matter. By merging them together in the same sentence, it might give the impression the two are somehow related, although that isn't the case. Also, when it came to the errors, there were some grammatical adjustments to be made which Fauco El-Millo and I did, so that's not an issue now. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No notify other users, you must use the {{Reply to}} template, using an @ won't do. Like this: @Adamstom.97: —El Millo (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Following up on this, it's now August and there is no indication that these supposed reshoots took place. On-location shoots for this film have garnered significant media attention, so the fact we haven't heard a peep about this isn't a good sign. Add on the fact that Pattinson and Farrell have repeatedly been photographed by paparazzi in California this past month, and Farrell stating in a mid-July interview that he hasn't spoken to Reeves in a while, I'm not sure this is even plausible. Prefall 10:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed to say that it didn't happen as long as we trust the original source. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if we trust the source, since it only indicates that something was expected to happen and there has been no corroboration that it did end up happening, could it fall under WP:CRYSTAL? Prefall 11:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Only if we say it actually happened, which we haven't yet. I think it is fine to leave it a while longer and see what comes up. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

I just noticed that the Deadline article announcing the Penguin series uses wording directly copied from this article to describe the character. Bringing this up in case copyvio concerns ever arise—the edit history should show that this article's wording predates the Deadline article JOEBRO64 14:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Another source using language directly lifted from the article, just for the record JOEBRO64 00:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Affleck

He isn't even in the movie, why on Earth is there such a large segment on him in the Production section. Govvy (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

... because a large portion of the film’s development happened while he was still involved? JOEBRO64 22:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The content is redundant, you don't even need his image on the article. :/ Govvy (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't? What you're saying makes no sense. This article is about The Batman, the same Batman that Ben Affleck started working on in 2014. The content isn't redundant at all. It's literally about this movie. JOEBRO64 22:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable inclusion to me, Affleck led the project in its early stages and there's a whole section about his involvement. Popcornfud (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Led the project? According to the article, "However, in January 2017, Affleck said the film had no script and that he might not direct it" Part of the outcome of what? It's like going for a job interview and not getting the job. Signing up to something that isn't happening? How relevant is that to the outcome of the film? Hardly streamlined. The whole section is overly detailed with other bits that are irrelevant to the current project. :/ Govvy (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Affleck was already Batman and there were many iterations of the script. This isn't at all comparable to going for a job interview and not getting the job. Affleck got the job and decided to step down, first as director and then completely left the project. —El Millo (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He worked on the film for five years, and the whole point of the development section is to cover the way the production changed from beginning to active production. The information should definitely be kept. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

Can I edit something? The film is going to be released on HBO Max 45 days after it releases in theaters, and this film is set to be the first Warner Bros. movie to have a theatrical release since Tenet, which means The Matrix Resurrections is definitely going to be the last film to have a simultaneous release on HBO Max for a month the same day it hits theaters. That's what I want to make. 2601:204:203:5110:E497:E099:EF08:9641 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Keoghan

Just an FYI, and potential spoilers follow—Barry Keoghan's brother recently claimed in a (now-deleted) Facebook post that Keoghan is actually playing the Joker rather than Stanley Merkel. Reliable sources haven't picked this up yet (EDIT: CBR has but clarify it's far from official) and it remains possible that his brother was trolling, so it should not be added to the article until sources affirm it. JOEBRO64 03:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Please add Vic Waghorn as member of cast for this film. His role played was Gotham Fire Cheif Seddan

Please add Vic Waghorn as member of cast for this film. His role played was Gotham Fire Cheif Sheddon. 213.18.155.73 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It also appears that this person does not have an existing Wikipedia article about them, which is typically necessary for an addition like this. See also WP:WTAF. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Con O'Neill's role

From the Funeral Scene provided by Warner Bros. we see Commissioner Gordon talking to O'Neill's character and referring him to "Chief", presumably the Chief of the GPD. Should we add this info? This source [6] also refers to O'Neill's character as Chief Mackenzie Bock so it parallels the film's funeral clip. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Define "Shared Universe"

So this is probably a stupid question, but when they say "shared universe" do they mean as in like an actual shared universe with multiple films with other heroes and villains, or do they just mean another boring trilogy focused solely on Batman. Because it's not really that clear. At least not to me. Also, I'm not fond of the idea of Matt Reeves trying to make yet another grounded version of Batman (like we really need another Nolanverse am I right?). I want Poison Ivy and Killer Croc damn it!

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC))

Your personal opinions are irrelevant here, please stick to the topic per WP:NOTFORUM. The reason "shared universe" is used here is more to do with the different planned spin-off series than direct sequel films, and also to differentiate from the existing DCEU shared universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Should I add psychological superhero film on the primary or stay in the superhero genre? Fortunewriter (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, WPFILM generally sticks to only the primary genre in the first sentence. In this case, it's primarily a superhero film, so it should stay just "superhero film". JOEBRO64 14:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Reception - Critical response

From a quick reading of this section it seems to overly focus it's international reviews on reviews from India, while ignoring critics from other areas. What we have now is basically what a bunch of critics in both the United States and India think about the film. It just seems....weird, to focus two whole paragraphs on just those two markets while excluding other markets. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@BatmanManchesterUnitedFan: Do you have reviews from other areas to recommend? GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I had the exact same thought while reading the review, particularly the huge amount of Indian reviews.

I could understand adding a couple reviews from well-known publications, but I had never heard of the vast majority of the sites/publications that were mentioned.

To be clear, it’s NOT because the reviews are from India. I’d feel the same if it was a bunch of American reviews from little-known publications/websites.

I feel like a wiki article is not the place to be posting bits of reviews like the ones in the India-focused section, but maybe I’m in the minority. It just seems out of place compared to other articles. Tigerpawraw (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Off hand? No. I don't know that we need to read what every critic of the movie who writes for a newspaper or magazine in one country thinks about the movie. One or two sources from one market might be ok, but eight to ten is a bit much. This section could stand to be expanded outside the United States and India, or significantly pared down. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. 2 or 3 reviews from the biggest sources in a particular country should suffice. Fahdriyami (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Indian reviews

Please do not add indian reviews to these articles most of the time those buggars don't know what the hell they are watching , After watching many shitty Indian movies while giving them 5 stars , they just ended up giving 3 or 2.5 stars to content related movies 112.134.148.132 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The input is definitely appreciated and I can see where you're going, but please do not discriminate against a certain nationality by calling them "buggars". GeraldWL 19:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Riddler's goons are a militia, not a cult 50.231.62.174 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot change

Small correction I suggest should be made, when it says the reasoning behind the coverup instead of it saying “Martha’s history of mental illness” it should specify it was her family’s history, since as it stands it implies she was the one who specifically suffered from it rather than it being the actions taken by her mother. 47.151.218.217 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is correct; Martha did suffer from mental illness (brought on by her parents' murder-suicide), hence why she was repeatedly hospitalised. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 11:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

A couple of times now my edit has been reverted. Some reasons were provided for this reversion, at least, on the second occasion, but not for all changes. I have listed below why each edit was made and would appreciate some input:

Edit 1

FROM: On Halloween, Gotham City mayor Don Mitchell Jr. is murdered by a serial killer calling himself the Riddler.

TO: On Halloween, Gotham City mayor Don Mitchell Jr. is murdered by a man calling himself the Riddler.

At the start of the story, Riddler is not (as far as we know) a killer of any sort, let alone a serial killer. He is, undoubtedly, a man however.

Edit 2

FROM: […]the Iceberg Lounge, a nightclub operated by mobster Carmine Falcone's lieutenant Penguin.

TO: […]the Iceberg Lounge, a nightclub operated by the Penguin, a lieutenant of mobster Carmine Falcone.

Penguin is the subject of this sentence, and should be given priority over Falcone. This edit also ties into the next edited sentence.

Edit 3

FROM: Batman questions the Penguin, who pleads ignorance, but notices that Selina Kyle, Annika's roommate and girlfriend, works there as a waitress.

TO: While Penguin pleads ignorance, Batman notices that Selina Kyle, Annika's friend, works at the club as a waitress.

There's no need to mention that Batman questions Penguin, as this is implied by the following clause that Penguin pleads ignorance. From wording also is not clear whether it is Batman or Pengiun who notices Selina Kyle. Secondly, whilst we do see Annika in Selina's apartment, there is nothing to suggest that are roommates, let alone romantically involved (as far as I could see, that is).

Edit 4

FROM: They learn that the Riddler was a resident at the orphanage and holds a grudge against the Wayne family.

TO: They learn that the Riddler next target is the son of Thomas Wayne; Bruce.

No, they don't, and no, he doesn't. They learn that there is something suspect about the Renewal fund and that Riddler is targeting Bruce Wayne as Thomas is already dead ("the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son"). There is nothing to suggest Riddler is an orphan, or that he holds a grudge against the Waynes (moreso than he does anybody else he has already targeted).

I would appreciate reasons for why these specific changes were reverted, as so far as I can see they are solid changes. Thanks. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I think you're being too technical. The Riddler is a serial killer. From the start of the story, he has a series of targets he seeks to kill, and is outright referred to as a "serial killer" by the time he kills Savage. I don't see the issue with calling him a serial killer at the start. It establishes who he is and what Batman will be up against.

2. This I understand, I'll restore this.

3. I understand where you're coming from with the Penguin, but as for the Selina bit: Kravitz confirmed in interviews that Selina and Annika live together, and there's nothing in the film that suggests they don't. And I interpreted the way Selina and Annika interact as romantic (they're clearly intimate, with Selina referring to her as "baby" and "honey"). Maybe "girlfriend" is a little open to interpretation, but I don't see any reason why "roommate" isn't an accurate description.

4. Not sure what you're talking about here. The plot doesn't say they learn he was a resident. All it says is that the Riddler holds a grudge against the Waynes, not that he was a resident. And he definitely holds a grudge—as the film touches on, he clearly hates the family; Thomas made promises that he never delivered, the orphanage they operated was filthy, and Bruce got all the attention that Riddler feels he deserved when the Waynes were killed. And since Thomas is dead, he decides to target Bruce. JOEBRO64 16:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The "roomate" bit is clear in the film, as they live together, the "girlfriend" bit is open to interpretation and ambiguous, because that language can be used amongst friends. In this article by Us Weekly, Kravitz says she interpreted as a bisexual relationship, but Reeves says he didn't think of it that way, but that it could be interpreted that way. If it's not clear from the film and the creatives involved aren't on the same page, we can't include it. —El Millo (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. Kept "roommate", however JOEBRO64 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Paul Dano's reason for reading in coffee shops

In the Casting section, the last sentence in the fourth paragraph reads, "To prepare, Dano researched serial killers, choosing to read in coffee shops because he found reading in a public place to be disturbing."

What the Esquire Middle East source link actually says is as follows: "Even with that kind of a resume, Dano still found this version of the Riddler to be a daunting task, one that unsettled him so deeply he couldn’t bring himself to prepare for it alone at home.

“I read quite a bit about serial killers in general, which wasn’t light reading. I found it so challenging that I had to go to the coffee shop and read. I just needed more friendly surroundings to read that stuff,” says Dano."

Dano found reading about serial killers alone at home to be disturbing, not reading in a public place. So the sentence in question should instead say something like, "To prepare, Dano researched serial killers, choosing to read in coffee shops because he found reading about the subject matter alone at home to be disturbing." Or it could say, "To prepare, Dano researched serial killers, choosing to read in coffee shops because he found the subject matter less disturbing in a public place."

UltraIncredible (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's how I'd originally written it. Looks like another editor messed up the meaning in a copyedit. I'll fix it. JOEBRO64 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this was me, apologies if so! - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disputed Budget Figures

I made an edit trying to add a second, different budget figure quoted from a recent Forbes article. I did not remove the original cited budget, but added the second figure as a range, which is common practice on Wikipedia when disputed budget figures are reported. My edit was reverted, with the person who reverted it saying that Forbes didn't list a "source." This is a silly statement, since the current cited source, Deadline, also does not cite a source for its budget. Forbes is a professional publication that is allowed to be used as a primary source on Wikipedia. They are not in the business of posting incorrect facts. Wikipedia's "sources" info page states this:

"Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Wikipedia notes that the acceptable articles should say "Forbes Staff" as opposed to "Contributor." This article's author, Scott Mendelson, is credited as "Forbes Staff" and his article says "I cover the film industry." Mendelson was also questioned about this new budget figure on Twitter, and replied that his figure is correct, and that Deadline's number is wrong. Below is the Forbes article and Mendelson's Twitter remark.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/02/11/dc-films-batman-flash-aquaman-black-adam-jason-momoa-dwayne-johnson-warner-bros-wonder-woman-shazam/?sh=690356fd4643

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1492636496607604740?s=20&t=RIRULC-AQ3LNIMdE66v73g — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediJones77 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The new budget does seem much more likely since the $100 million always seemed like a super low estimate for such a big film. I think including the range for now is best but we should keep an eye out for further confirmation one way or the other. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m usually one for listing ranges, but in this case I think a flat $200 million is justified. Deadline, THR, and Variety all list the budget at $200 million, and Forbes has been very off about costs on more than one occasion (listed Mortal Kombat at $95 million while every other publication had it at $55). I think the $185 figure needs at least one other to back it up since it’s the contrarian TropicAces (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that, don't want to give them too much weight if everyone else diagrees. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

World premiere info

Currently the page says that the film's world premiere was in London at the BFI Imax on 23rd February, but that doesn't appear to be correct. I think the infobox, lead, and release section all need to be amended.

The world premiere took place on 1st March in New York, according to the official Twitter account for the film as well as a number of other sources.

The BFI Imax was a 'special screening' according to Warner Bros, not the world premiere.

If the premiere is meant to be the earliest date that the film was screened, then the screening in Paris on 21st February would be the first date to include. --C0rrecti0n dude (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We should be listing the U.S. theatrical release date and the earliest viewing dates only, any others are just superfluous, so I think we have it wrong in the article at the moment which is using the March 1 date as the earlier date. We should be going back to the February 23 date I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. The infobox documentation doesn't say to list the premiere and the release in countries of production, it says to list the first release and the release in countries of production, so it doesn't matter what the February 23 screening was, that should be the one included. —El Millo (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Filming section

@TheJoebro64: hey, regarding my changes to the filming section, generally if you are going to split a section into two parts it is ideal to come up with a subheading for both parts, not just the second part. There is a guideline about this somewhere but can't remember where at the moment. As for the Chicago filming and filming wrap, as the section is currently formatted it is still basically all in chronological order except for those two bits, and they did both happen during the COVID-19 pandemic so I didn't see an issue with having them under the covid heading. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the Chicago bit and wrap at the end of the COVID-section. As for the first subheading - does "General" suffice? I definitely see where you're coming from, and since the first section mostly talks about general filming tidbits and describing how notable scenes were pulled off I think it should be good. (I just didn't like "initial work" because some stuff, like the Batmobile scene, in there was filmed post-shutdown and I don't think it'd fit cleanly in the COVID section.) JOEBRO64 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the "General" sub-heading because it is redundant and unnecessary. I don't see the need to have two subsection and there's no problem with having content directly under a section heading and then having a sub-heading. I've looked for a guideline that advises against it and haven't been able to find one. —El Millo (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This has definitely been an issue for me before but I also can't find the guideline right now. It will probably get cleared up as we further expand the article anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Catwoman

At no point in the film do they ever refer to Selina as "Catwoman", nor is she credited as such. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason list her as such in the cast list. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, like The Dark Knight Rises, she's received the moniker in marketing materials and has been referred to as Catwoman by the people working on the movie (Warner Bros.' official synopsis even calls her "Selina Kyle/aka Catwoman"). JOEBRO64 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Box Office Gross

The Batman's current box office total stands at 505.8 million dollars now, according to this Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/03/17/box-office-the-batman-passes-500-million-worldwide/?sh=10463890934c -72.202.142.244 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Batman § Submitting Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman film series) to article mainspace

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Batman § Submitting Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman film series) to article mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling

Under the "sets and props" subsection, every use of the word "hanger" is incorrect and needs to be changed to "hangar." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎208.77.56.242 (talk • contribs)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary

In the plot summary it says that the riddler does not know Batman is Bruce Wayne but does he not reveal repeatedly that he knows who he is, saying Bruce Wayne over and over in the asylum? I could be wrong but Sydpresscott (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The scene is a little confusing. It's played up like the Riddler knows, but as the scene goes on it's clear he doesn't realize that Bruce and Batman are one and the same. JOEBRO64 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this with my family and after the initial shock of the first "Bruce! Wayne!" (which is what that scene was designed to do), and after both Batman and the audiance realize he doesn't know his identity, we figured he the reason Riddler kept saying Bruce's name and was going on and on about how good his life is "in the mansion", was because Riddler still believed Batman to be an ally, and was trying to convince him to kill Bruce, since he was now locked up in Arkham. (just .02¢) - wolf 03:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article nomination?

Is this article good enough to pass the GA test? If not, what requirements must it pass in order for it to pass the GA?

-Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The movie's not out on home media yet. I'm also not going to nominate it until I've rewritten the reception section and filled out the production section with information from The Art of The Batman (which I've preordered but I'm not receiving until next month) JOEBRO64 02:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have ideas for an expansion of the reception section. Can I include reviews from sources such as THR, Variety, Roger Ebert, Independent, etc? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't see why not, think they're good sources Indagate (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the Visual effects section of the article could also be expanded? I have this article from IndieWire which gives more info about the visual effects of The Batman? https://www.indiewire.com/2022/03/the-batman-vfx-batmobile-gotham-1234709295/ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to use those sources anyway, but I'm going to be doing a full rewrite of the section that aligns with WP:RECEPTION and isn't just a quotefarm of "A said B". I'll get around to expanding the VFX section within the next few days. JOEBRO64 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I already did add in some of the sources in my edit. I was also thinking that we should add in other more mixed and negative reviews to balance out the Reception section, as per WP:NPOV and WP:MOS/Film (Critical Reception section). I also plan on archiving the sources in the Thematic Analysis section, and maybe even adding onto it a bit. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The reception section still needs a full rewrite, which I'm planning to get to. See WP:RECEPTION. JOEBRO64 22:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I also should note it's still pretty early to be talking about a GAN. The movie's been out for less than a month, and general consensus is to refrain from nominating until the movie's out on DVD. JOEBRO64 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I made this thread with the intent of improving the article so that it can be nominated to GA as quickly as possible. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to me. I assume you'll be keeping some of the sources I put (ie Variety, THR, Ringer), and that you'll obviously restructure it to fit WP:RECEPTION. Can we remove the Indian reviews as I don't see the point of them as they also praise the film and add in some other negative reviews to balance it out? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why the Indian reviews were even added in the first place. They're pretty random. JOEBRO64 01:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, and I do have permission to add in other critical reviews to balance it out? I can get the reviews in, and then you can fix the article so that it properly adheres to the outline of WP:RECEPTION? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Go for it, you don't need my permission. Be bold! JOEBRO64 01:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! :) Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64 I finished adding in some reviews, sources come from San Francisco Chronicle, New Yorker, New York Times, and The Washington Post. Let me know if I need to make any adjustments. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article needs to be focused (criteria #3) before it’s anybody’s Good Article. It’s way too long. Trillfendi (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is not too long by any stretch of the imagination, and I agree with Joebro that it is too early and there is plenty more information to be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the length is an issue. Worst-case scenario is that the production section has to be split, but honestly, I don't see that happening at the moment. JOEBRO64 03:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone cited an April fool's article

The bit about Pattinson retiring and being replaced by Ben Affleck is from a website that cited "April Fool's News."

Someone please edit it out. 240B:C020:4A2:1602:E0E6:1312:7C0C:F729 (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Done Indagate (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Barry Keoghan cast billing

Add Barry Keoghan to cast billing after Peter Sarsgaard, and before Andy Serkis

Although he only had a cameo, he had prominent billing in the end credits and there is enough information to add in the cast section if we were to add "Barry Keoghan as The Joker", such as his deleted scene, the casting process, his fake casting as Stanley Merkel, and Mike Marino's design Sabrosa Empanadas (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Sabrosa Empanadas (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Sabrosa Empanadas (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How do I do that? Sabrosa Empanadas (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

By discussing here in the talk page, rather than reopening the edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

All this information is in the article. His cameo appearance is credited in Cast section. The Mindhunter-inspired scene is discussed in the Writing and Editing sections. His casting as Stanley Merkel is already mentioned in the Casting section too. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The bulleted cast list only covers the actors credited in the billing block, the names you see at the top or bottom of the poster. Keoghan is not there, and the other information is covered in the Production section. So, no. — SirDot (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Selina and Batman kissing + post credits scene

Selina Kyle and the Batman kiss each other (twice), mutual attraction is portrayed more than once in the film, it should be added, briefly.

The article also misses a post-credits scene: a computer screen appears, with a question mark and then the sentence "GOOD BYE?", followed by a quick shot of the website the Riddler had been using to post his riddles (www.rataalada.com), while the viewer hears the distorted scream of a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.81.90 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

None of this is essential to understanding the basic plot, and a text in the screen isn't a post-credits scene. —El Millo (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is oddly arbitrary. You may think those elements are not important, but it's not up to wikipedia(ns) to override screenplay and direction. 93.33.81.90 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The "post-credit scene" isn't an actual scene and very unnecessary to note. Rataada.com is already noted in § Marketing, and the plot summary already satisfies WP:FILMPLOT (400–700 words) with 638 words. – SirDot (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

About the sub-plot on the relationship between the Batman and Selina Kyle. With a theatrical poster and a trailer dedicated to that, and with the well-known history these two characters have, it's an information readers might want. Ignoring it lowers the article's quality. However 60 words is more than enough to mention it. 93.33.81.90 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Kissing scenes are almost never noted in plot summaries, unless it is a pivotal point in the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a trivial detail, and as you noted, with the relationship the characters have, audiences can expect that they will have a romantic relationship. Ignoring it does not lower the article's quality as again, it's a trivial piece of information and not crucial to the plot. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "The bombs destroy the breakwaters around Gotham and flood the city." to "The bombs destroy the seawall around Gotham and flood the city.". The bombs destroy a seawall, not a set of breakwaters. d7415 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done d7415 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References

New poster

Hours after Warner Bros. India posted this new poster on Twitter, the official The Batman Twitter account has posted the same image. However, the poster still says "Only in Cinemas", which is not common practice in American English. I don't want any more back-and-forth reverts on File:The Batman (film) poster.jpg, so what do other editors think? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is an international poster so we should not add it. Wait till February or March. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @TheJoebro64, ZX2006XZ, Rupturestriker, and Iamnoahflores. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine let's revert to the teaser until the poster says "theaters" and not "cinemas". Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not an international poster. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean who knows, but for real, the "cinemas" is a big giveaway. I found a poster for Uncharted (film) with the current billing, but I can't put it because it says "coming soon only in cinemas". Let's revert it just for now, are we all agreed before I do it? Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, do it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this poster might be the real deal because most cast members and Warner Bros. have been using it to advertise the film. It feels like this might be the new official poster. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Official poster? Yes. U.S. poster? No. Theatrical release poster? Unclear. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64, Some Dude From North Carolina, ZX2006XZ, Rupturestriker, and Iamnoahflores: I would like to revisit this now that tickets for the film have gone on sale and no new poster has been released. While this has not been "officially" released online, a version of the ensemble poster which says "Only in Theaters" can be found on the film's official website (image), so that addresses the whole "international poster" issue. I am aware that there is still no billing block, but a theatrical release poster without a billing block is not unheard of. Therefore, unless a new poster with a billing block is released in the coming days/weeks, I believe this is our best option to use. Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For the time being yes.Rupturestriker (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes we should be using that one. You can also see the official billing block on the website (click on the "Credits & Ratings" link to keep it up). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, about time we found a usable version of that poster. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we can go ahead and change it for now, at least. If a poster with a billing block comes out, we should replace it with that, however. JOEBRO64 16:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to bump this discussion to discuss a new development: WB has released a release poster with a proper billing block. I uploaded it, but was reverted since it's not the one shown on Fandango. I thought WP:FILM consensus was to use the poster with the billing block? (Also noting that it says "Only in theaters" and isn't just a promo poster). JOEBRO64 15:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We do usually look to the billing block to indicate that it is the final poster, but the current one that we have is much more identifiable and is the key art that is still being used on the official website not to mention the go-to poster for a lot of key sites. Happy to discuss it, but I would lean towards keeping the one we have for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The previos poster is the one used primarily in international markets, while the current one is the US poster as seen on the AMC, the biggest theatre chain in US. I found the poster with a billing block so I updated it. --Rupturestriker (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that this poster is the one shown on most U.S. theater chain websites, but I'm not convinced we can call that the theatrical release poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the floating heads poster is more suitable for the article. Rupturestriker (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dispose of Thematic Analysis Section

I propose disposing of the Thematic Analysis section of the article. This article is already extremely long and contains a critical response section pertaining to the actual film. The thematic analysis section is reading into the film and is solely based on subjective opinions rather than any objective critique of the film itself. The thematic analysis section should be disposed with as being over-encumbering and unnecessary. At minimum, it should be merged into the critical response section instead of having its own section with two subjections to discuss the same five opinions. This section seems out of place compared to the rest of the article and contributes very little, if anything, to the article overall. Support? Opposition? Thoughts?

CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Thematic analysis sections are common in film articles and you haven't provided a single valid reason to remove it. JOEBRO64 11:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A copyedit will cut the length down considerably such as detailing dates people were cast. YOu don't need to cut an entire section for that.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's fine. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

188.70.52.251 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)change the box office from 600.1 Million to 720.4 Million

The box office figure in infobox and The Batman (film)#Box office says $751.1 million which is currently accurate per both BOM and Numbers Indagate (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

BO is updated Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove or revise “and the studio not allowing him to take off his costume.” under Production > Filming. I read the cited article (201) for clarity on this unusual assertion, and it seems like a misunderstanding of Pattinson’s quote. A more accurate phrasing would be “and being unable to leave the soundstage between shots while wearing his costume.” 2600:1700:5792:4890:25B8:B160:2E25:90DA (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)