Talk:Batman in film

Renaming "Dark Knight" or "Nolan" trilogy section

Any thoughts on simply calling this "Reboot" or something to that effect? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since current plans call for another reboot in 2016, that could get confusing later down the road. Just calling it "Nolan trilogy", though, does seem a little weird. I'd prefer we rename it to "Christopher Nolan trilogy (2005-2012)", and then maybe add parenthetical dates to the Burton/Schumacher section heading as well. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the reason I brought it up is I thought it could get confusing if Nolan changes his mind or if someone else picks up the mantle for him a la Burton/Shumacher. You do raise an excellent point though, and I think your suggestion is a good one. M main goal is to differentiate the three sections (Serials, Burton/Shumacher, Nolan) using the titles, if that makes any sense at all. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot the 66 film (which really should be the goal of every Batman fan) above... I think this should be renamed as well - perhaps 1966 Batman Film? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it with the directors' names, but add years to make it easier for people not familiar with the directors. --Boycool † (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fine as it is - using "series" after the directors' names. There's no need for the years, as this is mentioned after the title of each film. And "Batman (1966)" is fine as a header too, as this matches the formatting of all the other individual films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So which is it? The section title is being changed every friggin' day and messing up links to it. Can we agree and put a notice in the source text? The Dark Knight series seems logical to me, as the term "Dark Knight" is far more synonymous with this series than "Christopher Nolan" or even "Batman". Just another guy in a suit (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to be "Christopher Nolan Trilogy". It's not what I wanted, but I'll take it. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Man of Steel trailer says "Produced by Christopher Nolan, Director of Dark Knight trilogy". Seems semi-official. --Boycool † (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... it's a marketing tool used to draw a connection to the current and previous entries in a popular series. Keep in mind I was against consensus before - I vote we keep it as "Christopher Nolan Trilogy". Keep in mind no matter what we choose it's going to be an uphill battle keeping it consistent for few weeks while the film is the talk of the town.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Dark Knight" trilogy is unambiguous. And it tells you it's Batman rather then expecting you to already know the director. "Nolan trilogy", out of context, tells you nothing about the subject. Maybe he's done another couple of Inception films or prequels to Memento. Barsoomian (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we'd opted for "Christopher Nolan series" over "trilogy", but if we must go for "trilogy" then so be it. However, "The Dark Knight trilogy" is not in wide use yet, and seems like a marketing ploy. It has never been billed as the "Dark Knight Trilogy" - i.e. "The final chapter in the Dark Knight trilogy", so we should not be using that. Maybe in the future it will become widely known as this, and then we can revisit. But, until then it should stay how it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The film's website says "“The Dark Knight Rises” is the epic conclusion to filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy." I think the "The Dark Knight Trilogy" is a very suitable name. DanielDPeterson + talk 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that The Dark Knight Trilogy is a better title for the section, too. Plus, I also think Original Series is a better title for the Burton / Schumacher section. I tell it to you because the director is not the only laborer in the films, also exists the writers, the actors... Thanks for your attention. --Borxdeluxe (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gary Oldman as James Gordon

I think in the Christopher Nolan Series section of this article, it is worth mentioning Gary Oldman as Commisioner James Gordon, and his reprising the role for all three films. Each film description describes who plays Batman, and each villain. The second film even mentions Rachael Dawes, and the third mentions John Blake. James Gordon is a staple character in the Batman universe, and I feel like mention of him is certainly more important than listing Dawes and Blake. On that point you could also say that Michael Caine as Alfred is more relevant to the article than Dawes or Blake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.130.51 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Future

I think that the "Future" section should be inside the Christopher Nolan series section, it has been already anounced time and time again that he won't return and that this will be the ending of his series but that after that there would be a reboot. A new section for the future of a reboot should exist instead of mentions about Robin taking over the Batman legacy, things like that are just pure speculation. --Powerful Lord (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nolan films having their own article?

Does anyone else think that the Christopher Nolan films should have their own article, something like "The Dark Knight Saga", "Nolan Batman trilogy", etc.? Given that they are three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films ever made, it would make sense (to me, anyway) to have a page discussing those films. -- 173.79.47.172 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support that. --Boycool † (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think having an overview of all of the Nolan films here, along with detailed article for each film separately, is more than enough to cover the topic for encyclopedic purposes. Yet another page for the films would be redundant and have little informational value. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think I'd oppose that too. Coverage is sufficient here, and can be presented as a linear development of the character over a whole cinema career. It's also not a particularly large section, and as the Nolan series is most likely over, unlikely to expand an awful lot more now. Of course, something may happen. If so, we can discuss it then. Should a split happen, please consider WP:NCF before making up a name for the series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is a very good idea to give the dark knight trilogy it's own article as it is it's own independent film trilogy, and warrants it's own article in the same way that the lord of the rings trilogy has it's own article and is not just part of the middle earth in film article. Frogkermit (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, The Dark Knight Trilogy is now one of the most popular and acclaimed film trilogies of all time, just like The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit film trilogies have their own articles, these trilogies are self-contained, and are unique peices of film history, and should be treated as such. Charles Essie (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Citations for use

• Brian Jacks (2010-03-15). "Exclusive: Christian Bale Met For Superman Role In Wolfgang Petersen's 'Batman Vs. Superman'". MTV Splash Page.
• Gabe Toro (2011-10-05). "Joel Schumacher Says He Wanted Nicolas Cage To Play Scarecrow In The Aborted 'Batman Triumphant'". IndieWire.
• Fred Topel (2012-04-23). "Action Packed: Boaz Yakin on Safe and Batman Beyond". CraveOnline.
• Batman: Year One news archive
• Michael Fleming (October 2000). "George Clooney Pitches the Next Batman". Movieline.

Wildroot (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please include the article of the movie Catwoman (2004)...

For as this movie makes reference to Catwoman in Batman - The Return, it is obvious that he belongs to the same series of films of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, disagree?

201.79.216.181 (talk)

not likely to happen. - J Greb (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Section header

OK... the article is protected to allow the header for this section to be hashed out once and for all. For a number of months now it's been bouncing between "The Dark Knight Trilogy" and "Christopher Nolan series". Considering links point to both by name, this needs to be settled.

FWIW here are the options:

1. The Dark Knight Trilogy - This has been used as a title for the collected films. This doesn't seem problematic in itself since statements have been made that the next Bat-film will not follow the same continuity.
2. Christopher Nolan series - This is consistent with Batman in film#Tim Burton / Joel Schumacher series but seems unneeded. Unlike that section, this one only covers produced films and only one director was responsible for those films.
3. Christopher Nolan trilogy - Same as #2, but with a finer point. #2 implies that there may be more than just the three films. That seems to either be weaseling or crystal balling.
4. 2005-2012 films (or trilogy) - Either would be correct in describing this section. And it doesn't have the same problem that using "1989-1997 films" would for the Burton/Schumacher section - there is nothing to show that there was a "fourth" film planned, conceptualized, proposed, or started. Unlike the Burton/Schumacher where there are two aborted 5th films where Schumacher would have continued that continuity. And this would be the simplest titling.

Can we hash out where we want this to go?

- J Greb (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support either #1 or #3. Oppose #2; as you stated, #3 states the same thing, but more precisely. Oppose #4 because that's probably not what a reader would be looking for; also, it seems unnecessary since the sub-headings state the years for the three films. #3 is consistent with the other films, but for someone not familiar with the name "Christopher Nolan", #1 would be the most descriptive name and most easily identifiable with the trilogy. Warner Bros. itself is even using that name in their marketing. --Boycool † (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How about 'Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy', which includes both titles to hopefully keep all editiors happy Frogkermit (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said for keeping section headers simple and straight forward. Remember, these are used as anchors for links in other article, so there should be a short, easily used term.

I can see where the dates are redundant, but it is consistent with the section on the serials. It may be that a change there is needed as well. "Columbia Pictures serials" maybe.

Options 1 and 3 are what this has been more or less bouncing between, and I would tend to agree with Boycool - The Dark Knight Trilogy is the more commonly used on.

- J Greb (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Christopher Nolan series" as previously decided. Firstly for consistency with Burton/Schumacher, and also avoids the promotional nature of The Dark Knight trilogy. In my view "trilogy" should be avoided, as this is not a bona fide trilogy, as the second and third films were only put in production after the success of the first film. WP:NCF prefers "series" over trilogy, although it does allow for "trilogy" in some cases. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, "The Dark Knight Trilogy" is overtly promotional capitalised and italicised in this way. If we must go with this wording, "The Dark Knight trilogy" would be more appropriate, as it is descriptive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the article naming guideline, "trilogy" looks appropriate if the section was a stand alone article - that is how the set is commonly refered to at this point. And "bona fide" is a bit mercurial - the films act as a trilogy regardless of the being shot, written, and/or conceptualized at the same time. - J Greb (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Christopher Nolan series" for reasons articulated by Rob Sinden above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support "The Dark Knight Trilogy" because it is by far the most identifiable title for the series for most people, as well as being the only title I've ever seen used for the series in any official capacity, regardless of whether it sounds promotional or not. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics" scores

The MOS for film articles was recently changed. You can read the whole section here: MOS:FILM#Reception, but in short the section says 'There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.' Since the page is protected, I would appreciate it if another editor could remove the "Top Critics" score column from the table on the page. Thanks. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. - Fantr (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013

I request that the name christopher nolan's series also include the name The Dark Knight Trilogy in brackets according with the official edition used by warner brothers of all the films in one trilogy Thank you 114.45.187.49 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please see above discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

In the Academy Award nomination page it claims that Danny Devito was nominated for best supporting actor, this is incorrect: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000362/awards Please remove that fact.

JuilliardHustle (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done BryanG (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Batman 66

Where is batman1966 on box offie peppers it madev$1.7 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Batman (2016)

Hi, I read Warner wants a reboot of the Batman film series for 2016. It is also likely that, unlike other franchises, would be located long after its inception and would be based on the Arkham Asylum game, because Warner wants a different movie to Batman Begins, and Batman (1989). Greetings.--TheJoker Was Here! 01:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ComicBook News. Here is the link [1]. --TheJoker Was Here! 22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend put this cite in the article "...Actually Warner Bros. wants a reboot of Batman based on the action-adventure video game Batman: Arkham Asylum, with the return of the Joker as principal vilain, but is not a fact."

U v highest grossing movie

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series The cout batman the movie in the batman franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

TDKR

"However most fans did not enjoy the film due to plotholes and other issues." Sorry but this assertion isn't backed up by any evidence (the source given doesn't back it up, and it is inherently difficult to prove, especially in the context of the film's largely positive reviews and high box office etc). I propose deleting this sentence from the article. (Besides, fans of what? By definition they are not fans of the movie if they didn't enjoy it. Fans of Nolan? Fans of the trilogy? Fans of Batman? How are they defined and how can it be proved that most of them didn't enjoy it?) 81.155.213.32 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done - I took care of it before I read this. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles

The following discussion 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.

---

I feel that this article page is overly long and should be split into smaller articles. My reason is that aside from the Burton/Schumacer series and the Christopher Nolan trilogy, none of the other Batman films (live action or otherwise) are getting much coverage here. I feel it should be split into Batman (1989 film series) and Batman (2005 film series). We have a precedent for this as there is a Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) page. Lunchmeets (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here we have an overview of the production history, with the failed projects between the series showing in a continuous timeline. We would lose this chronology if we were to split the article. Also, the section in question is quite small and unlikely to be expanded now that the series is over. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The Batman Universe in Nolan Movies is a separate entity of its own. The gadgets, characters, themes are set in its own world. It'd be something similar to giving a season of a TV show a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.212.137 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the Burton/Schumacher series and Nolan's trilogy are completely unrelated, however this page should be preserved as an umbrella. Charles Essie (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why mess up a perfectly good article by breaking it into pieces? None of the films need much coverage here, because they all have their own individual articles for more information. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Robsinden and Fortdj33.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This article provides a comprehensive overview of Batman on film, and if you break it up into chunks it defeats the purpose. The size doesn't necessitate a split so let's keep it as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• At the very least, The Dark Knight Trilogy should get's own page, for reasons stated above. Charles Essie (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support: There is a considerable gap between the two movie series and it would be logical to give Christopher Nolan's series a separate page considering the large amount of critical acclaim and box office success it has achieved. The new article could have it's own sections which would appeal to the people interested in the new series alone. And also, this article does not extensively define the production of the Nolan trilogy which I believe is necessary. NiR_insanity 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons stated above. It is really unnecessary to split it into its own article. Furthermore, even though there are 2 (about to be 3) separate series, it is all part of the same franchise, similar to the pre-and-post-Daniel Craig James Bond series and the 2002 and 2012 Spider-Man series. They are separated into different sections within the article, and that is all that is necessary. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Same reason as User:Charles Essie. They even have their own separate templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinthos7 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - There should be an individual full article to be the head of the navboxes for these series. We already recognize by way of the independent navboxes that these are separate series; we don't need to change anything about this article to also have an article specific to the Christopher Nolan series. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A new article would help to add detail to the Nolan series. Agreeing to all the points by NiR, I personally think that it deserves a new article on it's own. Such is the impact it had on Hollywood super hero films. Josephjames.me (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus seams to be for a new article 6-5. So unless there is any more opposition, I will begin to create it. Thank You. --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of unpublished material that I can add if I create it, such as series info box - group Rotten Tomatoes etc. --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Created. Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warner REBORN (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? It seems a failure to reach consensus to me. In any case, the important outcome of this discussion is that the Batman in film page should remain more-or-less as it is now. I have no opinion on "The Dark Knight (trilogy)". —WOFall (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus to fork the article and we don't need a second article duplicating the material. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

Add the following three films to the "Animated Films" section: Son of Batman under the "Featuring Batman" subheader, and JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time and Justice League: War under the "With other heroes" subheader. Appropriate description and formatting for each is below:

• 2014: Son of Batman, based on Batman & Son

• 2014: JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time, an original direct-to-DVD film
• 2014: Justice League: War, based on Justice League: Origin

136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. GamingBuddha (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Update the response in the film sections to match their Wikipedia page counterparts

72.49.95.188 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources (not Wikipedia pages) to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes ratings

Will someone update the rotten tomatoes ratings to match Thier current ratings on the website

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Batman in film → List of films featuring Batman
• Spider-Man in film → List of films featuring Spider-Man
• Superman in film → List of films featuring Superman
• James Bond in film → List of films featuring James Bond

– All these articles are mostly lists and the proposed names should help searchers more than the current ones in explaining that. Unreal7 (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We already have List of James Bond films, whose content differs entirely from James Bond in film, so the move would be utterly mistaken. The format of "xxx in film" pages cover a very different amount of information to the List pages, so there is no logic to the proposed moves. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as those names do not accurately represent what the pages contain. This is an unnecessary move, and your reason isn't very convincing. If you want people who search up 'List of films featuring Batman' to get to the 'Batman in film' page, then just make it a redirect. In the WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that someone is much more likely to come across 'Batman in film' than 'List of films featuring Batman' when searching for Batman-related films. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per SchroCat and adamstom97. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SchroCat and adamstom97 as well.AbramTerger (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per SchroCat and adamstom97. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose we already have List of James Bond films ; James Bond in film should be split into two James Bond (film franchise) and James Bond in film where the franchise would contain details on it, while the general article would only contain a summary of the franchise. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't the forum to discuss a possible split of a Bond page, which should be on the relevant talk page. The only two things I would add here is that 1. it's not a franchise, it's a series; 2. I'm not sure there is enough of a difference between the two proposed pages to justify it. If you think otherwise, perhaps you could open a thread on the talk page of James Bond in film to discuss it further? – SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Some of these articles are already accompanied by list articles. Something like James Bond in film is more of a prose based article anyway. Not much to add really; if it aint broke... etc. Betty Logan (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - These 'in film' articles are mostly prose with some tables and illustrations. These are not list articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Series names

I think we should change the section called "Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher" to "Original Series". We should change "Christopher Nolan" to "The Dark Knight Trilogy". And finally, we should change "Zack Snyder" to "DC Cinematic Universe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Change the "Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher" section name to "Initial Film Series (1989-1997)"

Change the "Christopher Nolan" section name to "The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)"

Change the "Zach Snyder" section name to "DC Shared Film Universe (2013- )" 50.5.219.27 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

rationale? Using the names of the directors seem like perfectly good section headers to me, lets you know from the get-go who did them. Cannolis (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Add the information "In October 2014, a Batman film was announced with an intended release between 2016 and 2020" to untitled batman film section.

Re-merge the sub-articles?

Okay, so the "sub-articles" The Dark Knight trilogy and Batman (1989 film series) were created after a discussion 9 months ago, but they have not been expanded (as predicted), add no value whatsoever, and serve no purpose. Text is merely a duplication of this article and they are a dangerous WP:CONTENTFORK of what is already included here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The The Dark Knight trilogy and Batman (1989 film series) are distinct series, and each article has sufficient content to sustain their being separate articles. Any issues of duplicated material remaining in Batman in film should be addressed by trimming Batman in film per WP:SUMMARY. TJRC (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Trimming this article as suggested by TJRC would go against the consensus at Talk:Batman in film#Split into multiple articles. The RFC found in favor of creating the spin-off articles not on the premise that the material would be better off elsewhere, but explicitly to accommodate the inclusion of more information. The fact that this further development has not taken place undermines the original conclusions of the RFC, and as such we now have three articles covering what can be covered by one. I am in favor of redirecting the other two articles here and they can always be recreated if somebody chooses to push ahead with developing them. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's just duplicate information and there is no real need for the two series to be separate. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I spent months trying to get these articles separated and I will not allow some hack to ruin my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The two series are clearly different from each other, with enough content in each to support more than one article. I agree with TJRC's citation of WP:SUMMARY. In fact, on a separate note, we could even apply this rule to the Star Wars movies. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 22:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The previous close specifically states that this article should not be trimmed. If you rip the guts out of this (a WP:GA by the way) you'll dilute the hard work put in by the editors and lose the overview of the topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The Dark Knight trilogy is one of the most popular film series ever and deserves an article for itself. Also, as seen here and here, the article is almost as popular as the Batman in film article itself. Rayukk (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

All that justifies is that The Dark Knight trilogy is a useful redirect. The reader sees no benefit from a content fork. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @S Marshall:, who closed the previous split discussion for opinion as to whether standalone articles have been improved per the spirit of his close. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi all, thanks for pinging me. The standalone articles have not yet been improved as envisaged in my discussion close, but there's no deadline for improving them. All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in :) I appreciate that there's no rush, but as the split was made on the basis the articles could and would be improved, could the case not be made that maybe there is nothing more to add? Surely the splits should only be made if and when editors are willing to put the work in. Any argument for the split is moot if the articles are not improved after the best part of a year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these improvements are not going to be undertaken, at least by the editor who proposed the split. Generally we don't go around splitting articles on the off-chance somebody might want to expand it one day. That is why we have Category:Redirects with possibilities. Re-merging the articles does not revoke the outcome of the RFC: the time to undertake the split is the time somebody undertakes these substantive improvements. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose In terms of the trilogy, I think the "batman in film" page would be a bit too vague. And besides, the two are very distinct series. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 15:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In avoidance of "Batman in film" getting clustered, different series having their own articles should be considered, especially if the particular series had a major impact on the franchise, which Nolan's TDK Trilogy indeed did. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So, a few months down the line, and still no improvement. Surely it's time to re-merge this WP:CONTENTFORK now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't called Batman Triumphant

Apparently, the working title for the sequel to Batman & Robin was never "Batman Triumphant", but "Batman Unchained". The script writer has stated in an interview that the title "Batman Triumphant" is a complete fabrication, and he has no idea were this came from. So the title should be changed in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.235.66 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrange Films by "Era"?

The box office and reception section of this page seem quite messy. Would it be possible for someone to colour code them with borders, in a similar way (or pretty much identical) to those on the Star Trek or the Planet of the Apes? Thanks - it'd make everything much clearer to distinguish between the original series and various reboots and one-offs. 86.177.102.198 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)