Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Hate

Honestly, is there any need for that little paragraph about all the nerd rage on the internet? Like with Batman we can put that under the casting subsection of the production section, not in the cast section. But honestly, it seems ridiculously immature to put it and was likely added by a Marvel fanboy or butthurt DC fanboy. Not to mention the rudeness towards the actors in the film to quote entire sentences from it. Change.org is full of a bunch of dumb petitions.

I wouldn't create a section for such little information, and we've already discussed a "Casting" section when we have a "cast list", per what WP:MOSFILM details. If there was a lot of controversy, then we could have a section just on that. I'm actually ok with removing it completely, because at the end of the day we're talking about 50k signatures....which isn't a lot. The petition for Dredd 2 gets 3 or 4 times that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it entirely as well.

As long as the required information has been placed somewhere appropriate, I'm ok with that. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell me Kailash, find me a featured article that went as in-depth into this retarded hate mongering by butthurt fanboys.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Check Casino Royale (FA) and Tim Burton's Batman (GA). And whenever calling me, please use the Ping template as it will notify me. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to use the ping template. Here're the differences between the Casino Royale/Batman pages and Man of Steel 2- they use reliable sources, and don't use direct quotes. Moono, CNN, The Daily Mirror, Variety, etc... are reliable, secondary sources. Change.org is a unreliable, primary source and no one cares about John Roden. And again, there are no quotes in the previous pages so my edits were justified in cutting out the fat.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"A man named John Roden created a petition", don't you see how silly this sounds? It sounds like friends talking around a table, not something an encyclopedia that takes itself seriously would say. We might as well go ahead and change it to "Some dude named John Roden", because it's at that level of credibility. And, as noted, no article describes the fan complaining about the cast at this level of detail. - Fighting Fefnir (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

^Thank you. If Kailash doesn't respond by tomorrow, I'm changing it. Wikipedia is not going to give voice to some nutjobs.--173.66.186.136 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How about we create a casting section and move all relevant casting information there? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is this isn't relevant casting information. It has no place being on this site. You are literally the only person defending its continued presence.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that, if we must, we could do something like all other articles about adaptations do: just mention, briefly, that there have been fan complaints about specific cast members when they were announced. I don't see why we should go into detail about something that happens every time an adaptation announces its cast. I hate giving Fifty Shades as an example, but I'll do it: all the fiery fan outrage was summed up to "In response to the negative fan reaction the casting drew" and a quote from the producer. The Dark Knight doesn't mention initial fan reaction to Heath Ledger at all; and, in case some don't remember, it was the same as this situation. - Fighting Fefnir (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done written as simply "The casting of Affleck met with significant backlash from fans, with more than 51,000 people signing an online petition demanding the removal of him from his role", without the change.org source. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not done. Unless you can find an alternative, reliable, secondary source citing significant fan outrage, we're removing everything. That includes the criticism of Gadot as well.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That claim is supported by this source which I believe is reliable. The Gadot criticism is supported by this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Independent is fine, CBM is not reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done replaced the CBM source with this MTV source, which includes a video interview of Amy Adams reacting to the backlash at Gadot's casting. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Variety source isn't reliable as it's literally just two people talking about Eisenberg. And again I repeat, the other pages didn't go to this length of detail, so I don't understand why we can't just trim the fat to simply "The casting of Affleck, Gadot, and Eisenberg was met with backlash from fans." Look at what Fighting Fefnir said above about the 50 Shades of Grey backlash.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you refuse to talk, I will take that as a sign that you don't want to negotiate and will go about implementing my changes. It's your choice.--173.66.186.136 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this issue is resolved. Reliable sources have been used, and it has been significantly copy-edited to get to the crux of the point. As it stands on the page currently, is acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. I don't get why some people insist on censoring the hate Affleck has received. It is relevant. As the LA Times reported, it was a "tsunami of hate." Even actors Richard Dreyfuss and Patton Oswalt made fun of that. --Decembor (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It was reported that an online petition to discard Affleck from the film reached 70,000 signatures (as of August 4, 2014, it is over 96,000 at change.org). And Affleck recevied death threats over this issue. This is relevant and I'm going to include it in the article. If you have something to say, proceed. --Decembor (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Decembor: Both of the sources for death threats are unreliable, and the miscellaneous information is unnecessary. The fact that petitions were made is the relevance, not the amount of signatures (unless it breaks a considerable number like 100,000, which it may do soon). And I completely believe the death threats are real, and they would definitely be worth including, but we need better sources for them. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SanDiegoRed appears in many WP articles as a source. Go and successfully challenge those articles and I will look for another source. Regarding the petition, do we have to wait for 100,000 signatures or do we have to wait for an article reporting the 100,000 signatures? Give me a break. --Decembor (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

While SanDiegoRed may be reliable on its own, it says "According to the web page Comic Book Movie", which means its source is unreliable, and therefore its information is too. As for waiting on an article reporting the high signatures (100k), yeah, I would say we should. You just need to be patient; if the information is covered by well-known sources (think about it: why would serious death threats and a 100k strong petition for removal not be covered by well-known sources?) then we'll add the information in. We're in no rush. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I find it curious that there's not a single, even small mention, of the backlash the Affleck casting got when announced. British newspaper Metro reported that "numerous anti-Affleck Facebook pages have sprung up" and the SanDiegoRed article mentions the same thing, among other things. So, why not? Do we need an "in-depth" article, as somebody fatuously suggested before? An in-depth article will never happen, but the relevant thing here is the heavy criticism of the casting, and Wikipedia not even mentioning it. --Decembor (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh...yes there is. The last sentence of the casting reads like this: "The casting of Affleck, Gadot, and Eisenberg was met with some backlash from fans, with some going to such lengths as creating online petitions calling for the removal of Affleck." It's addressed exactly as much as it should be at the moment. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 21:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I completely misunderstood. I confess I'm still angry about that mediocre actor Ben Affleck is playing Batman. Case closed. Please accept my apologies. --Decembor (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

Currently, the lead says: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an upcoming American superhero film based on the DC Comics characters Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. It is the intended sequel to 2013's Man of Steel and the second installment in the DC Cinematic Universe.[1][2][3] Zack Snyder is directing the film, written by Chris Terrio, from a story by Snyder and David S. Goyer, and stars Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jesse Eisenberg, Jeremy Irons, and Holly Hunter." This places more emphasis on the film's placement in the (not actually existing) DC film universe, over who is actually making the film. Newyorker32 (talk · contribs) has ignored my comments (see his and my talk page), and refuses to actually discuss why I believe that the correct set up should be: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an upcoming American superhero film based on the DC Comics characters Superman and Batman. Zack Snyder is directing the film, written by Chris Terrio, from a story by Snyder and David S. Goyer, and stars Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jesse Eisenberg, Jeremy Irons, and Holly Hunter. Dawn of Justice is the intended sequel to 2013's Man of Steel and the second installment in the DC Cinematic Universe." What are others' feelings on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

examples of the same layout are on the Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America pages. Newyorker32 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples of it not: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Friday the 13th.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bignole (talk · contribs) sounds is trying to change something for the sake of other movie pages so Bignole (talk · contribs) whole argument contradicts with the reason of the "This places more emphasis on the film's placement in the (not actually existing) DC film universe, over who is actually making the film" reason. My reason behind it is other superhero films layout a specific format where the "Cinematic Universe" has the actors after the film credits. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Friday the 13th have never be mentioned as "Cinematic Universes." Newyorker32 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You never make sense when you discuss issues. My argument that, "This places more emphasis on the film's placement in the (not actually existing) DC film universe, over who is actually making the film." isn't negated or contradicted by the fact that people have been doing it on film pages recently. They are not even contingent upon each other. What people do, and reason to NOT do it, do not go hand-in-hand like you are presenting. The page does place more emphasis on the "universe" than on the film itself (i.e., talking about who made it first, then discussing its place).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Friday the 13th have never be mentioned as "Cinematic Universes." Newyorker32 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

They exist within their own universes. Again, you're placing more emphasis on a specialized position of a "universe". You're actually arguing that this is so uncommon, that it should be right up front.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I agree with the original phrasing (in support of Bignole). The sentence involving "the second installment..." is pretty weird up there. There is quite a difference between DC's film franchise and Marvel's film franchise. DC's "Cinematic Universe" as the press are calling it, is not the "DC Cinematic Universe" right now. It is one franchise, currently. DC has advertised Batman v. Superman as a sequel to Man of Steel, and Justice League as a sequel to Batman v. Superman - ONE franchise, a trilogy at this point. The film should be discussed as a film production primarily, as the article covers it.

For it to be a universe like Marvel's (which it seems everyone is attempting to compare it to), there would have to be multiple franchises. There is a universe, there's always a universe, but it's one single story right now. I actually disagree with using "DC Cinematic Universe" as a proper noun and singular entity. The fact that a "shared universe" is planned, does not mean it is THE shared cinematic DC Universe. However, I would suggest changing the first sentence to "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an upcoming American superhero film featuring Batman and Superman, fictional characters appearing in publications by DC Comics."

Also, Newyorker. Using the second-person pronoun "you" is perfectly fine. I believe you got the idea that it's bad from me - in our last encounter, you were using authoritative language like "I'll let you", which I pointed out seems like bad faith. In a discussion between editors, using "you" is fine...we don't have to call each other sir or mister. || Tako (bother me) || 21:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Bignole and Tako both have points for this page. Given that a) the DC films have not established a cinematic universe like Marvel and b) that name is not even a true name for the proposed shared films, I think until such a time that the universe gets to the level that Marvel's had, it should not have the weight that it does at the beginning of the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Tako i know, that's why i sent a message explaining how poorly that discussion went over. we were both rude to each other, but Bignole (talk · contribs) was directly attacking. it's about being fair to one another, but i felt Bignole (talk · contribs) was not. no one should just bully someone over just because they think they're right always. Newyorker32 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises was a universe where no other DC characters had a shared fictional universe that is centered on a series of superhero films.Newyorker32 (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you felt bullied NewYork, then I apologize. That certainly was not my intention. I was merely trying to point out how I viewed your edits as placing more emphasis on a fictional universe than the people that made the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bignole (talk · contribs) listen, i get it if you're a high rated user or whatever. i don't really care ( i mean that in a good way). i just believe that there should be an option for different opinions and that there are people who have a reason for edits and not doing it for the sake of it. i glanced over at Marvel's films and saw that they had a pretty good layout for their films and while we don't know DC's road map, it seems pretty similar in terms of the DC characters having a shared fictional universe that is centered on a series of superhero films. however, i felt the high rated users just "shove off" what everyone else does. whether it has meaning to it or not. Newyorker32 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily understand the idea of a "high rated user", but it wasn't like I simply reverted without an explanation. I tried repeatedly to give you my viewpoint, and per WP:BOLD, we should have been at a discussion long before we eventually got here. The point is not that other pages are doing it. Again, my stance is that it shouldn't be done period (not even on the Marvel pages) because it's placing emphasis on this shared universe over the film as a standalone object. The "shared" universe ties closer to the plot of the film, than anything, and the plot of the film doesn't end up as the second item in the lead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD Newyorker32, you should have been discussing after your first edit that was reverted, instead of edit warring with Bignole. I believe Bignole's/the original version of the lead was better. The DC Cinematic Universe is not as prominent as the Marval one. Director, writers, producers and lead actors should be given more prominence and weight in the lead. STATic message me! 22:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

STATic that's why we're having a discussion now. Newyorker32 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bignole (talk · contribs) can we agree on to have the edit left off at 20:00? Newyorker32 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what edit that is. You and I are not on the same time system. I don't have an edit at "20:00".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

He means revision 612928449 || Tako (bother me) || 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bignole (talk · contribs) i'm trying to work with you here. the edit was the last one you made until the whole edit warring. if you still don't know what i'm talking about then we can leave it that. Newyorker32 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's this edit, then yes. Sorry for the delay, it shows as 16:00 on my time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Momoa as Aquaman

I've added this source to the article under the 'filming' section, since it was announced during Filming. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jason Momoa

The report that Jason Momoa, which may be true or it may be not, is based on a rumor. It contradicts previous reports, and comes from an unreliable source. Since we were just having a discussion about the reliability of Nikki Fitz and rumors, this is the same issue. This is a source "claiming" that it's "official". Yet, no one has confirmed this. Wikipedia is not a current events organization. It's an encyclopedia, that uses historical information to develop pages. Given that no one has actually confirmed his role, Jason Momoa has denied it for months, and we're not called IMDb, this shouldn't be added (at this time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

HitFix, the origin of the report, is a perfectly reliable source, so it can be sourced from that. We don't have to wait for official confirmation from the studio to include info, although that is always nice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Warner Bros will refuse to confirm it, like they did with Gal Gadot's inclusion last year because thats what big companies do, try to keep its fans in the dark not realizing that their confirmation is no longer necessary as other reliable new sources carry the news anyways..I agree, it deserves to be listed in the article, without using the word 'confirmed', heck it can be there for one or 2 months before WB are forced to 'confirm' it..Our job is to add correct information and his casting IMO is correct, we do NOT work for WB (though Bignole does have some sort of link with DC Comics) so we should not be forced to wait for confirmation from WB if other RELIABLE news sources have confirmed it as true..--Stemoc (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already gone ahead and added The Hollywood Reporter's report on Momoa being cast as Aquaman, so what's the problem here? Why are we talking about the HitFix source when we have a clearer source within HollywoodReporter? HitFix, while being a reliable source, can sometimes not be so reliable, in which they tend to say things, and then (in some instances) get retracted or not used at all because of the questionability of the source. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How is it that we argue not to include rumors every other time, but because someone says "confirmed" (yet doesn't actually say WHO confirmed this), we jump all over it and want it included? HitFix is the only place actually making this claim (everyone else is reporting what Hitfix is saying). They have not cited any particular person as confirming it, and it goes against Momoa, Warner Bros., and the other reliable source (Nikki Finke) that people are using to cite what the films in this universe are going to look like. Verifiability says that even if something is verifiable (meaning a reliable source is reporting it) does not mean that it should be included. Given the nature of films to have a lot of rumored casting, and the fact that we're not IMDb, it's better to err on the side of caution and wait for an actual confirmation. I'm not saying Momoa is not going to be Aquaman (it certainly makes sense), but we have 1 source saying he is (everyone else is using the same source), and multiple sources either not confirming or completely denying it. If they are going to announce it, it will be at ComicCon, which is next month.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter is also reporting it. And these sources don't have to state who reported it. They are reliable sources for a reason because there is a trust gained in the industry. I don't know how that can be said generally for Hitfix, but I know that is true for Hollywood Reporter. So that source can most definitely be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can still post rumors. The Hollywood Reporter has in the past. The real question is, what's the rush to add something that does not impact the film as a whole and hasn't actually been confirmed (with recent other sources, that everyone claims are just as reliable, contradicting it and saying that the character isn't even in the film)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

lol who are you man. We've been putting things confirmed by THR, Deadline, etc on the articles for years now and they're never wrong about casting. There is no rush, it's confirmed, it should be put in the article. Let it go. You clearly aren't actually familiar with the source yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making a big deal about it. You just look silly right now. Suzuku (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been following Nikki and her former company Deadline for years now, she has never been wrong. Bignole, there are people who have access to insider information, that is what we all Good Journalism..you have been very negative towards this article since the day it was created and as i mentioned on my page, its best if you kept away from it...you revert everything that doesn't suit you..again dude, to avoid getting reported to RfC in the future, its best if you stop removing everything you do not like..wikipedia is a democracy..if someone does file an RfC against you because of something similar, you won't get many supporters..if any..the casting of Momoa is NOT a rumor, it was a rumour back in April, its not now..--Stemoc (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are saying "Nikki has never been wrong", yet you're arguing that you should include another source that contradict her (she has stated that Aquaman is NOT in the film) simply because they put the word "confirmed" (yet don't identify who confirmed it)? If Nikki is never wrong, then shouldn't be NOT including Momoa since she said the character doesn't appear in the film? Stemoc, try not to speak to things you don't understand regarding my "removing everything" and someone filing an "RfC" (Request for Comment) against me (I believe you're thinking of an ANI, which there is nothing wrong with cleaning up articles and removing things that have no business because over-zealous fanboys want to include every minute detail).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay guys, it might be time for those in this conversation to sit back, relax, and breathe. I feel an incivil moon rising, and I don't think this subject matter is worth it. That said, I have a suggestion. An easy way to preserve Wikipedia's integrity would be to specifically state who reported that Momoa was Aquaman. THR posting it is definitely worth including, whether it's right or not. That said, if we note that it's specifically from them and Hitfix, we're covered. If they end up being wrong, we report that they were wrong. This shouldn't be a big deal, just give a little more credit to those "confirming" his casting so that if it's a blunder, it doesn't fall on us. Also, I would only put it in the Casting section for now, rather than the Cast. Again, reporting what others report until we have solid confirmation. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, (specifically WP:NEWSORG) rumors can be worth including in an article. In fact, a few of the points there apply here:

• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source.

These guidelines assert that we can state that an organization (HitFix) has confirmed something that was previously rumored. However, per the guidelines, we cannot use THR as another citation, since they got their story from HitFix. There is also the issue that THR does not add any new information about Jason Momoa, except for mentioning they had previously reported he was in talks to join the film, they simply state he's playing Aquaman, and later say "HitFix reported this first". If we do consider Nikki Finke a reliable source, then her perspective - as well Jason Momoa's own perspective on how he isn't playing Aquaman - should also be included, per WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Generally, I agree with Bignole, that we're too hasty in adding content from sources without further verification or confirmation. || Tako (bother me) || 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt this discussion gentlemen, but could we get more voices on the "Hate" topic above?--173.66.186.136 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporting is stating it has been confirmed through their sources, but they are noting that Hitfix first reported it. So they are a separate source confirming the info, as an FYI to what Tako said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of bluntly saying that he's been confirmed as being cast we instead state that while THR is reporting it as confirmed via their sources there is yet to be any official announcement from WB, Zach Snyder or anyone else involved in the project. Also it might be worth mentioning that Momoa himself, regardless of connotation, in an interview with Jimmy Kimmel dismissed the announcement as rumor.(Zeldamaster702 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC))

Ok, so a recent interview with Zack Snyder has him saying that he isn't going to confirm if Aquaman is even in his movie. At the bare minimum, we need to add the "rumored" part back in, because no one involved is confirming this addition. I think we really need to remove it until confirmed, but it certainly is not a given.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

References in popular culture

My comment was previously removed when someone calously blanked the page without checking the content first.

Fringe, from around 2010, shows "Superman vs Batman" in an alternate universe: http://imgur.com/LtFDHSv 98.127.119.21 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New Hate

@Bignole: @Fighting Fefnir: Alright guys, I don't think anyone can really see the original section on this, but I want to continue the discussion because I feel there's a valid counterpoint to be made. I'll repost my response from above here: I apologize for my seeming aggression. Let me address my points in a clear-cut manner. One, Variety may be a reliable source, but the article in question is literally just two of the writers having a conversation with one another. There is no talk of the larger fan disapproval of Eisenberg's casting, just their opinions. Two, when we look at other pages that have had similar occurrences of seemingly negative casting choices, such as Batman, 50 Shades, and Casino Royale, it's always simplified into just "we don't like it". That's the crux of the point, as you put it Favre1fan93. Only this page has gone into detail about the supposed problems a minority of people have, all of which will be null-and-void when the film is released. Take Gadot's criticism of being "too skinny". Based on later news reports) and Snyder's own history of getting his actors into shape (see 300 and Sucker Punch), it's a moot point to be talking about and quite honestly appears rather silly on an online encyclopedia page.----Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Red: I don't think you read the first paragraph of the Variety article. It reads: "The announcement from Warner Bros. today that Jesse Eisenberg had been cast as Lex Luthor in the untitled Superman-Batman sequel scheduled for 2016 was met with howls from the blogosphere. But in this case, the Internet might actually have a point." That pretty clearly defines that Variety was acknowledging the backlash against him, so its inclusion as a reliable source regarding the internet backlash is warranted. However, I think the extraneous info about Gadot and Eisenberg is unnecessary. Noting that someone started a petition against Affleck is notable, as it was covered by a news outlet as well known as The Independent. Other two, though, totally agree. Corvoe (speak to me) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Corvoe: Okay, I did miss that. I'll keep the Variety source and the Ben Affleck petition, but trim down everything else.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

The movie is called Batman v Superman so Batman's name should be first in everything and Ben Affleck's name should be first also. This is the only site that hasn't done that yet. This movie is also not a Man Of Steel sequel. 69.180.122.161 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 15:04, 25 July 2014

How can a consensus be establish? How can the conversation be started?

First, make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so we can identify who's posting. Second, go to the top of this page, hit "New Section", and post your rationale for what you want changed using "Listing Batman's and Ben Affleck's name first" as a subject header. I've changed this back to "semi-protected edit" header per the initial purpose of this section. Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing Batman's and Ben Affleck's name first

The movie is called Batman v Superman so Batman's name should be listed first before Superman and Ben Affleck's name should be listed before Henry Cavill also. This is the only site that hasn't done that yet and most of them lists this movie as the new Batman movie starring Ben Affleck with out even mentioning Superman at all. This movie is also not a Man Of Steel sequel. 69.180.122.161 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with this is it seems like a POV issue, and also like original research. What do you mean by "the only site that hasn't done that yet"? And how does that have bearing here? I'm a bit lost on your argument. Just because websites don't mention Superman doesn't mean he's irrelevant to the film. As for it not being a Man of Steel sequel, Snyder himself has stated several times that it is one (it's sourced under the development section). I see where you're coming from, but I think you need a better rationale. Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible page move?

Just out of curiosity, how do editors feel about moving the page to Batman v Superman without the subtitle? While the WP:OFFICIALNAME is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, guideline suggest to use the WP:COMMONNAME. For instance Dr. Strangelove is not located at Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, its official title. It seems to me that the vernacular in this case is simply Batman v Superman. This is not a formal request, I'm am just gauging opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, as the subtitle Dawn of Justice is also very common. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it referred to much more as Batman v Superman than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and hardly ever as Dawn of Justice by itself. An unscientific google search returns 128,000,000 hits for "Batman v Superman", and 41,500,000 hits for "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's the actual name of the film. Redirects can come to this page, but there is no point in moving the page and having the actual name be a redirect. Dr. Stangelove is a poor example, as (like Borat) it has an unnecessarily long name name, and this is not the case for this film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure why people are using voting when TriiipleThreat was just suggesting the idea, but okay. I'm personally opposed to the idea as well, though I see where you're coming from. Bignole made a good counter argument to the Dr. Strangelove point, and I don't think the common name is either, really. People dock the shorthand because people are lazy, not because they aren't acknowledging its existence. The redirects works fine. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 13:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to disagree as well. I understand the concern but deciding this before the film even has a chance to establish its historical significance is way too early. We should at least wait a few months if not a few years after the film's release to have this discussion. It isn't set in stone if this will be the only "Batman v Superman" title, either in film or comics. In addition, the "unscientific" search includes a majority of hits that are not reliable sources going against the basic premise behind WP:COMMONNAME. At the very least, you should be able to show an accurate trend if you want to generate serious consideration from other editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Semantic Conflict

Hello gentlemen, we have another impasse to overcome. I recently changed the sentence "The casting of Affleck, Gadot, and Eisenberg was met with backlash from fans" to "The casting of Affleck, Gadot, and Eisenberg was met with backlash from some fans."

My reasoning behind this is that the sentence, as structured now, implies an absolute statement about comic fans in general, which is completely false. The responses to Affleck and Gadot at Comic Con disprove this instantly for starters. Adding the adjective "some" before the word fans will resolve this small problem easily.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock earlier suggested that we simply say "backlash" to be POV/weasel-word free. I support his statement. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I would normally agree with my wording too, but I realized a bit of an issue: saying "fans" isn't really correct. No one can be a fan of this movie yet, it doesn't exist. Should we add "of the characters", perhaps? I don't know, but it needs something else. Sock (tock talk) 10:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some" is a weasel word, it's not measurable, and thus not acceptable to use. Your current wording seems good to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird that I disagreed with myself when others agree with me, haha. No biggy. I hadn't seen the reword with "from fans of the character" added, which I think is an excellent addition that makes it read much better. "Fans", as it was used, was too nondescript. Good changes! Sock (tock talk) 12:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can this please be changed?

"Jason Momoa was later cast as Aquaman, also in a minor role, though the casting has yet to be confirmed." That makes no sense. It says he was cast, I don't believe he was, then says it's unconfirmed. Can it be removed or changed to rumored? 24.188.197.22 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)