![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Now that more of the dust has settled, I've gone back in and made a few changes. I moved a few refs out of the lead into the body, as a result of being a little outdated (they still apply to statements in the body), as well as added a couple newer refs that help support the additional information I added. While it was important for us to point out that many believed it to be a box office disappointment, many of those same sources also noted that it turned a profit. Therefore, we should mention that here, as it provides a little balance and perspective. The rest of the changes are pretty much self-explanatory. I felt they helped grammatically and improved the overall flow of that last paragraph. If anyone has any issues, or would like to change something further, I'm definitely open to suggestions. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion with a sock puppet
|
---|
It doesn't seem necessary to mention "despite turning a profit" if the film "is considered a box office disappointment." Doesn't accurately represent sourced that were cited. Feels like effort to balance or neutralize content with personal interpretation. A disappointment is a disappointment. Reads much better without the self-conscious lead in. So I changed it for now. Games Junn ( talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere where it says "despite turning a profit." What seems significant here is that it didn't make enough of a profit. You don't own this page. Games Junn ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You are rationalizing, and projecting. It was more of a misunderstanding, one of which I backed down on once I was made aware of all povs. You are an edit war of one, my friend. The edit war is in your head. Take it easy. Games Junn ( talk) 00:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update box office gross. Greglarocca095 ( talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A blanket warning left on my IP. I was making trims to verbose article. Told2 respond here. Don't see consensus against my trims. I Do note debates about box office and critics. I am not making those changes. Someone keeps adding phrases like mixed or excessively worded praise for film. That not me. Do not lump me in with those changes. Article is old enough it could benefit from trim. Paraphrasing is subjective and depends on editor's point of view. I took care not 2 change meaning. My goals limited 2 efficient word economy and length. 71.170.231.217 ( talk) 15:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
How WP:IDHT of you. There is no formal consensus 2 justify your disruptive reverts in the mess of bickering you are referring. Take a formal vote 4 the changes we're forbidden 2 make or properly template or protect the page. Your rude kneejerk warnings on random IPs violates good faith. The page is verbose and should be allowed 2 evolve. Your opinion of what sounds better is subjective when we get in2 the nuts and bolts of how 2 refine a page. Your abuse of process is duly noted and reported.Moving 2 dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Why else would Batman make a SPEAR with Kryptonite in it? What do you think people do to each other with SPEARS, other than kill?
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Within the "Box office"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-box-office-drops-a-record-81-in-second-weekend-but-what-does-that-mean/) is cited twice for the same claim (The "with a 81.2% decline on Friday that was "one of the biggest Friday-to-Friday drops any blockbuster has ever seen", and an overall "68.4%" drop for the weekend despite not "facing any big competition at the box office","-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? Furthermore, within the "North America"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#1bb7084f6d72) is cited twice for the same claim (The "It fell 37.8% on Saturday, which is the second worst superhero opening Friday-to-Saturday drop, only behind the 40% drop of The Dark Knight Rises."-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 ( talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In my back-and-forth with Bignole, I believe the last paragraph of the plot summary should clearly specify that Superman receives a state funeral from Uncle Sam at Arlington National Cemetery, despite his coffin is empty. This scene is in both the theatrical cut and the ultimate extended cut. And it is our responsibility to pay tribute to another planet's immigrant who sacrifices his life for us. With terrorist attacks from ISIS most recently in Istanbul, Turkey, people need to learn that freedom is not free. We need a strong military to defend us while engaging in diplomacy first and foremost. Those who agree with me should rewrite the last paragraph better. It could be done in 10 words. If space is concerned, the memorial in Metropolis could be left out, since it is held at a purely fictional place that has occurred in the plot section and doesn't add much to the understanding. Supermann ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the article for Justice League, the movie is set after the events in Batman v Superman. Therefore that film is a sequel to this one. I wonder why some people don't think so. A sequel is a story that takes place after the events in the previous one, right? Wubzy ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The plot summary exceeds the 700-word limit. It must be condensed. It runs to 930 words. 79.68.211.226 ( talk) 17:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Though I liked this film, there's no doubt it received overwhelmingly negative reviews. Why has the reception section been changed to say "mixed to negative reviews?" This is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:FC2D:3AF5:5B5C:31DD ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The film received mixed reviews according to Metacritic. I personally think we should change it back to mixed to negative or mixed Joef1234 ( talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Home Media section should moved, verbatim, into the Release section, like it is for every other film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.107.1 ( talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- with
this edit. Thank you for the clear request. --
Begoon
talk
13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done
In the "Plot" section, the creature created by Lex Luthor as a backup should the Batman/Superman fight fail is referred to as a "a genetically-engineered monster with DNA from both Zod's body and his own" and the fact that the creature is Doomsday is relegated to a footnote, even though Lex explicitly calls him Doomsday when introducing the creature to Superman. While its creation is certainly not in line with the comics, being a Zod corruption instead of a Kryptonian cryptid, in the end the character has been identified many times as Doomsday in the media. I believe it should be referred to as Doomsday in the article as well. Has this issue been addressed previously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.179.104 ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
noun 1. (sometimes capital) the day on which the Last Judgment will occurDonQuixote ( talk) 02:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed BvS is considered a box office disappointment, and the word "box office disappointment" is wikilinked to box office bomb. Are the terms synonymous? 47.152.93.124 ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Superman had a memorial/burial service at the Arlington National Cemetery should be mentioned in the Plot Section. Right now it's very misleading as if his sacrifice didn't mean anything to the country. Thanks.` Supermann ( talk) 02:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As it is right now, the sections in the lead and the reception stating that BvS received mostly negative reviews from critics
, are in clear violation of
WP:POV (including
WP:WEIGHT) and
WP:V, since as I've said before, the movie has received its fair share of praise, as is also evident when you read the third paragraph of the reception section.
If this was ever unclear, it should be pointed out that per
WP:CCPOL, which states The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus
,
WP:POV (including
WP:WEIGHT) and
WP:V always supersede any editor consensus.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
LoMS talk 16:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
received mostly negative reviews from critics, is 1) ignoring the fact, per WP:WEIGHT (and since that policy is a part of WP:POV, subsequently violating the latter) that there are critics who have praised one or more aspects of the movie, as is evident by the third paragraph in the reception section, 2) also in violation of WP:V since there are reliable sources (pointing again to the third paragraph) who have given it a positive review.
I'm not quite sure how a well-sourced summary statement violates WP:POV, as it's not our research that has reached this conclusion.The fact that the movie
received mostly negative reviews from critics, is not verifiable, in the sense that there are positive reviews out there, is how this violates WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:V.
but I think we need to be careful not to allow the amount of praise to outweigh the level of negative criticism, I don't think this will happen, especially since even among the mixed and positive reviews there were criticism aimed at a number of things. But I do get what you're saying.
the movie was heavily criticized for its lack of humor and heart(tone),
preference for action over substance(screenplay),
and incoherent and mindless storytelling(pacing). (Alternatively, everything in green can be substituted with everything that's between the brackets.)
Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics, who praised the action sequences, visual style, effects, depictions of the characters, musical score and acting performances, but heavily criticized the film's screenplay and tone.
Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics for its tone, screenplay, and pacing, though some praised the film's visual style and acting performances.
@ GoneIn60: Agreed. Glad we could work this out. :)
LoMS talk 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why the article calls everyone by their last names. Calling her Prince? Who knows her as Prince? Then some characters they call by the first name. It's inconsistant. They don't call Bruce Wayne's mom Wayne, they call her Martha. But there's two Marthas in the film right? and then they call her Prince still when she's dressed as Wonder Woman and they don't call batman and superman by their last names, they call them by their superhero name when they are in their superhero costumes.-- MathUser2929 ( talk) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why use "follow-up" instead of "sequel"? Shouldn't this movie and Man of Steel be considered in the same series - the DCEU Superman series, that is? This movie isn't standalone. Its plot does ultimately revolve around Superman, consists mostly of the same characters from Man of Steel and takes place in the same setting, only extended to include Gotham, Nairomi, etc. Even Zack Snyder, when asked if it is "Man of Steel 2", replied that it is so but solo Superman movies will be coming. Ash wki ( talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60, this is a fatuous conflict. It is unnecessary to quote the BBC article because the prior paragraph is devoted to the question of reception, discussing the film's scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic among other things. You will not see something like what you want on many other film pages here, and for good reason. You also did not explain your undoing of my grammatical edit to a later sentence. AndrewOne ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Despite favorable reaction from early moviegoers,[cite BBC News Lindy West in The Guardian described it as...
AndrewOne: Well, I let this stew for a couple weeks, and it failed to generate additional comments from other editors. I assume you've disengaged at this point, but as an attempt to reach a compromise, I've made a change that should hopefully resolve some of the concerns. I shortened the quote from BBC and moved it into the 1st paragraph, which seems like a better fit. The opening of the 2nd paragraph introduces the contrast that's about to follow. While at first glance, it may still seem a bit redundant, keep in mind that the focus in the 1st paragraph shifts from critics' reaction to audience reaction. The transition back to critics seems necessary to me. The only way we could omit it, would be to move the audience reaction to the end of the section into its own paragraph, if we believe there is enough content surrounding audience reaction to warrant such a move (currently, two sentences doesn't seem like enough). Figured this is at least better than it was. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Under the Sequel heading, it is written that the movie Justice League is a direct sequel to this movie. This cannot be right since Justice League is logically a standalone film. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice sets up the plot and continuity of the movie. While Marvel Studios' Iron Man films, Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger set up their tentpole superhero team movie The Avengers, the latter is logically a standalone film and not a sequel to those movies. - Ash wki ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ash wki, I undid your edit claiming that this film is a sequel to Man of Steel. The general consensus I've observed in editing on this page is that the term "follow-up" is preferred, meaning it shares some of the same elements and characters expanding on both, but it is not generally considered a direct sequel. At the very least, a couple solid sources calling it a sequel are needed. The one you provided uses some passing comments in an interview that state, "in a way", which is in no way a definitive statement. We would need a secondary perspective from critics/analysts that are calling it a sequel, and it should be a well-established fact that is generally accepted by most. I'm not currently seeing that in the sources. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ TommyVictor:, scroll up to the Critical response section on this page to see recent comments regarding this area in the lead. You can also check comments at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 4 and Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 5 for past consensus on the issue. After multiple discussions, the current phrasing in the lead has been hashed out and resembles what various editors have agreed on. If you'd like to start a new discussion, then here's the place to do it. Explain the reasoning behind your proposal. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Now that more of the dust has settled, I've gone back in and made a few changes. I moved a few refs out of the lead into the body, as a result of being a little outdated (they still apply to statements in the body), as well as added a couple newer refs that help support the additional information I added. While it was important for us to point out that many believed it to be a box office disappointment, many of those same sources also noted that it turned a profit. Therefore, we should mention that here, as it provides a little balance and perspective. The rest of the changes are pretty much self-explanatory. I felt they helped grammatically and improved the overall flow of that last paragraph. If anyone has any issues, or would like to change something further, I'm definitely open to suggestions. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion with a sock puppet
|
---|
It doesn't seem necessary to mention "despite turning a profit" if the film "is considered a box office disappointment." Doesn't accurately represent sourced that were cited. Feels like effort to balance or neutralize content with personal interpretation. A disappointment is a disappointment. Reads much better without the self-conscious lead in. So I changed it for now. Games Junn ( talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere where it says "despite turning a profit." What seems significant here is that it didn't make enough of a profit. You don't own this page. Games Junn ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You are rationalizing, and projecting. It was more of a misunderstanding, one of which I backed down on once I was made aware of all povs. You are an edit war of one, my friend. The edit war is in your head. Take it easy. Games Junn ( talk) 00:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update box office gross. Greglarocca095 ( talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A blanket warning left on my IP. I was making trims to verbose article. Told2 respond here. Don't see consensus against my trims. I Do note debates about box office and critics. I am not making those changes. Someone keeps adding phrases like mixed or excessively worded praise for film. That not me. Do not lump me in with those changes. Article is old enough it could benefit from trim. Paraphrasing is subjective and depends on editor's point of view. I took care not 2 change meaning. My goals limited 2 efficient word economy and length. 71.170.231.217 ( talk) 15:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
How WP:IDHT of you. There is no formal consensus 2 justify your disruptive reverts in the mess of bickering you are referring. Take a formal vote 4 the changes we're forbidden 2 make or properly template or protect the page. Your rude kneejerk warnings on random IPs violates good faith. The page is verbose and should be allowed 2 evolve. Your opinion of what sounds better is subjective when we get in2 the nuts and bolts of how 2 refine a page. Your abuse of process is duly noted and reported.Moving 2 dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Why else would Batman make a SPEAR with Kryptonite in it? What do you think people do to each other with SPEARS, other than kill?
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Within the "Box office"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.slashfilm.com/batman-v-superman-box-office-drops-a-record-81-in-second-weekend-but-what-does-that-mean/) is cited twice for the same claim (The "with a 81.2% decline on Friday that was "one of the biggest Friday-to-Friday drops any blockbuster has ever seen", and an overall "68.4%" drop for the weekend despite not "facing any big competition at the box office","-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? Furthermore, within the "North America"-section of the "Reception"-section, the same source (www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2016/03/28/batman-v-superman-sets-record-with-worst-friday-sunday-drop-for-superhero-pics/#1bb7084f6d72) is cited twice for the same claim (The "It fell 37.8% on Saturday, which is the second worst superhero opening Friday-to-Saturday drop, only behind the 40% drop of The Dark Knight Rises."-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 ( talk) 09:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
In my back-and-forth with Bignole, I believe the last paragraph of the plot summary should clearly specify that Superman receives a state funeral from Uncle Sam at Arlington National Cemetery, despite his coffin is empty. This scene is in both the theatrical cut and the ultimate extended cut. And it is our responsibility to pay tribute to another planet's immigrant who sacrifices his life for us. With terrorist attacks from ISIS most recently in Istanbul, Turkey, people need to learn that freedom is not free. We need a strong military to defend us while engaging in diplomacy first and foremost. Those who agree with me should rewrite the last paragraph better. It could be done in 10 words. If space is concerned, the memorial in Metropolis could be left out, since it is held at a purely fictional place that has occurred in the plot section and doesn't add much to the understanding. Supermann ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the article for Justice League, the movie is set after the events in Batman v Superman. Therefore that film is a sequel to this one. I wonder why some people don't think so. A sequel is a story that takes place after the events in the previous one, right? Wubzy ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The plot summary exceeds the 700-word limit. It must be condensed. It runs to 930 words. 79.68.211.226 ( talk) 17:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Though I liked this film, there's no doubt it received overwhelmingly negative reviews. Why has the reception section been changed to say "mixed to negative reviews?" This is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:FC2D:3AF5:5B5C:31DD ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The film received mixed reviews according to Metacritic. I personally think we should change it back to mixed to negative or mixed Joef1234 ( talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Home Media section should moved, verbatim, into the Release section, like it is for every other film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.107.1 ( talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- with
this edit. Thank you for the clear request. --
Begoon
talk
13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done
In the "Plot" section, the creature created by Lex Luthor as a backup should the Batman/Superman fight fail is referred to as a "a genetically-engineered monster with DNA from both Zod's body and his own" and the fact that the creature is Doomsday is relegated to a footnote, even though Lex explicitly calls him Doomsday when introducing the creature to Superman. While its creation is certainly not in line with the comics, being a Zod corruption instead of a Kryptonian cryptid, in the end the character has been identified many times as Doomsday in the media. I believe it should be referred to as Doomsday in the article as well. Has this issue been addressed previously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.179.104 ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
noun 1. (sometimes capital) the day on which the Last Judgment will occurDonQuixote ( talk) 02:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed BvS is considered a box office disappointment, and the word "box office disappointment" is wikilinked to box office bomb. Are the terms synonymous? 47.152.93.124 ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Superman had a memorial/burial service at the Arlington National Cemetery should be mentioned in the Plot Section. Right now it's very misleading as if his sacrifice didn't mean anything to the country. Thanks.` Supermann ( talk) 02:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As it is right now, the sections in the lead and the reception stating that BvS received mostly negative reviews from critics
, are in clear violation of
WP:POV (including
WP:WEIGHT) and
WP:V, since as I've said before, the movie has received its fair share of praise, as is also evident when you read the third paragraph of the reception section.
If this was ever unclear, it should be pointed out that per
WP:CCPOL, which states The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus
,
WP:POV (including
WP:WEIGHT) and
WP:V always supersede any editor consensus.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
LoMS talk 16:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
received mostly negative reviews from critics, is 1) ignoring the fact, per WP:WEIGHT (and since that policy is a part of WP:POV, subsequently violating the latter) that there are critics who have praised one or more aspects of the movie, as is evident by the third paragraph in the reception section, 2) also in violation of WP:V since there are reliable sources (pointing again to the third paragraph) who have given it a positive review.
I'm not quite sure how a well-sourced summary statement violates WP:POV, as it's not our research that has reached this conclusion.The fact that the movie
received mostly negative reviews from critics, is not verifiable, in the sense that there are positive reviews out there, is how this violates WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:V.
but I think we need to be careful not to allow the amount of praise to outweigh the level of negative criticism, I don't think this will happen, especially since even among the mixed and positive reviews there were criticism aimed at a number of things. But I do get what you're saying.
the movie was heavily criticized for its lack of humor and heart(tone),
preference for action over substance(screenplay),
and incoherent and mindless storytelling(pacing). (Alternatively, everything in green can be substituted with everything that's between the brackets.)
Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics, who praised the action sequences, visual style, effects, depictions of the characters, musical score and acting performances, but heavily criticized the film's screenplay and tone.
Despite turning a profit, it was deemed a box office disappointment and received generally unfavorable reviews from critics for its tone, screenplay, and pacing, though some praised the film's visual style and acting performances.
@ GoneIn60: Agreed. Glad we could work this out. :)
LoMS talk 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why the article calls everyone by their last names. Calling her Prince? Who knows her as Prince? Then some characters they call by the first name. It's inconsistant. They don't call Bruce Wayne's mom Wayne, they call her Martha. But there's two Marthas in the film right? and then they call her Prince still when she's dressed as Wonder Woman and they don't call batman and superman by their last names, they call them by their superhero name when they are in their superhero costumes.-- MathUser2929 ( talk) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why use "follow-up" instead of "sequel"? Shouldn't this movie and Man of Steel be considered in the same series - the DCEU Superman series, that is? This movie isn't standalone. Its plot does ultimately revolve around Superman, consists mostly of the same characters from Man of Steel and takes place in the same setting, only extended to include Gotham, Nairomi, etc. Even Zack Snyder, when asked if it is "Man of Steel 2", replied that it is so but solo Superman movies will be coming. Ash wki ( talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60, this is a fatuous conflict. It is unnecessary to quote the BBC article because the prior paragraph is devoted to the question of reception, discussing the film's scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic among other things. You will not see something like what you want on many other film pages here, and for good reason. You also did not explain your undoing of my grammatical edit to a later sentence. AndrewOne ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Despite favorable reaction from early moviegoers,[cite BBC News Lindy West in The Guardian described it as...
AndrewOne: Well, I let this stew for a couple weeks, and it failed to generate additional comments from other editors. I assume you've disengaged at this point, but as an attempt to reach a compromise, I've made a change that should hopefully resolve some of the concerns. I shortened the quote from BBC and moved it into the 1st paragraph, which seems like a better fit. The opening of the 2nd paragraph introduces the contrast that's about to follow. While at first glance, it may still seem a bit redundant, keep in mind that the focus in the 1st paragraph shifts from critics' reaction to audience reaction. The transition back to critics seems necessary to me. The only way we could omit it, would be to move the audience reaction to the end of the section into its own paragraph, if we believe there is enough content surrounding audience reaction to warrant such a move (currently, two sentences doesn't seem like enough). Figured this is at least better than it was. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Under the Sequel heading, it is written that the movie Justice League is a direct sequel to this movie. This cannot be right since Justice League is logically a standalone film. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice sets up the plot and continuity of the movie. While Marvel Studios' Iron Man films, Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger set up their tentpole superhero team movie The Avengers, the latter is logically a standalone film and not a sequel to those movies. - Ash wki ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ash wki, I undid your edit claiming that this film is a sequel to Man of Steel. The general consensus I've observed in editing on this page is that the term "follow-up" is preferred, meaning it shares some of the same elements and characters expanding on both, but it is not generally considered a direct sequel. At the very least, a couple solid sources calling it a sequel are needed. The one you provided uses some passing comments in an interview that state, "in a way", which is in no way a definitive statement. We would need a secondary perspective from critics/analysts that are calling it a sequel, and it should be a well-established fact that is generally accepted by most. I'm not currently seeing that in the sources. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@ TommyVictor:, scroll up to the Critical response section on this page to see recent comments regarding this area in the lead. You can also check comments at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 4 and Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 5 for past consensus on the issue. After multiple discussions, the current phrasing in the lead has been hashed out and resembles what various editors have agreed on. If you'd like to start a new discussion, then here's the place to do it. Explain the reasoning behind your proposal. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)