Talk:Man of Steel (film)

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)

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: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — 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 increases 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

World engine

The plot currently includes: "a terraforming "world engine" to transform Earth into a new Krypton". This isn't "terraforming", it's actually the opposite. (Anti-terraform? Kryptoform? Ugh.) I suggest just delete the word and link, it adds nothing except an incorrect buzzword. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the word is used incorrectly, Professor Hamilton uses the word "terraforming" when the dumb broad Captain asks "what's that?"129.139.1.75 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good God. Since it is wrong by definition, if included at all it should be as a quote, not in editorial text as it is now. Which would be more attention than it needs; it's still better to just delete it and avoid a tedious explanation of why it's wrong. But I can anticipate some will cite the script as a redefinition of the word. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I would think that deleting the word would be ok, since "world engine" in quotes implies it's lifted from the dialogue, and the rest of the sentence gives a reader an idea of what a "world engine" in the film does. Would removing the word but creating a wikilink to "terraforming" through "world engine" work? I know technically it would be linking a page describing the opposite of what is described in the film/article but might help readers understand the concept. SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In the context of science fiction, Terraforming is the process to make a planet more hospitable for a different species/lifeform. In this case, the use of terraforming is correct as the device in the film is mentioned that the device is terraforming earth and earlier in the film Jor El mentions the purpose of the World-Engine - which I believe was to make the worlds more hospitable. - Or words to that effect. So the use of terraforming is correct. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Terraforming is the process to make a planet more hospitable for a different species/lifeform." No, it is not. Where is your source for this redefinition? There is no vague "lifeforms" in the WP definition, it's about making a planet more suitable for humans -- "Terra" == Earth. The terraforming article defines it as the process of making a planet "similar to the biosphere of Earth" and "habitable by humans". To describe a process that makes the Earth uninhabitable to humans as "terraforming" is the exact opposite. If you really want to link to an article about the concept more general terms like planetary engineering could be used correctly. But these buzzwords, correct or not, are unnecessary in the plot description anyway, the rest of the sentence explains just what is happening, which is not terraforming. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If we keep the link to terraforming, people who click on it will see the second paragraph in the lead of that article says "The term is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering, although some consider this more general usage an error." Therefore, I say keep it in. GoingBatty (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So you think we should validate the incorrect usage rather that use a link to say planetary engineering? (If we must have a link at all, I don't think it helps.) Also I have yet to see any citations to this "more general" usage. Just an unsourced assertion by some WP editor. Surely an encylopedia should aim to use the most correct and exact words rather than looking for excuses to allow incorrect usage. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you ask a general citizen what a terraforming device is, it fits the definition in which it is used currently. Whilst it might be technically incorrect, it is widely accepted as usable (just as IC code is used despite being a tautology).  drewmunn  talk  14:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's just define "inflammable" as "unable to be burnt" as there are some people who believe that. Why worry about correct use of language in an encyclopaedia? Let's just take a vote on what the man in the street think to decide matters of fact. 202.81.243.184 (talk)

This seems like a lot of debate about something insignificant. Dr. Hamilton said it was like terraforming to provide an image for the person asking the question, he wasn't using it as the actual definition of what was happening...probably because there isn't an equivalent hypothetical name for turning Earth into Krypton. At the end of the day, the theory behind terraforming is exactly what Zod did, except he was doing it TO Earth and not in the image of Earth. Thus, it's correct to use it this way, because we are not identifying it as the name of what he did, but providing an illustration of what he did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There IS a name for the process in the film: planetary engineering. Use that if you must have a link to an article about the concept. The word teraforming is not "correct", it's opposite in meaning to what is happening. And of course it's insignificant. 99% of arguments here are. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 06:17, 20 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)

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)

Plot summary

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 [1] 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)