![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There are a great deal of references in this article, but many are not considered reliable for a wiki reference and the first one I clicked on no longer exist. This needs to be addressed as well.-- Amadscientist 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
From here, I found the following:
Hope you can make use of some of these print sources. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Somebody, whose only ID is User:71.224.69.248, keeps vandalizing this page saying that the film "failed" at the box office, "sucked" according to many reviews, and that "Superman fans were appalled to see Superman be an irresponsible father", etc etc. Not very neutral POV. I don't want an edit war to be the end result, nor do I wish to be a nagger, but whoever you are, please stop making false edits on this page. The film was, for your information, well-received and did average at the box office, but it was not a flop. The reviews and critic reception were about 76-77% positive, and many fans enjoyed the film. Please stop doing this, or I will have to report this. User:Cluebert 9 January 2008 11:35 P.M (UTC)
For the love of God why does people insist on saying Superman Returns did "really good" at the Box Office? It did not.. Warner Bros. was indeed disappointed with the Box Office intake. If they were not than why the heck is there no script or any hard good news for the sequel? Why did the Writer's Strike delay production? Why did the Singer's writing pals "leave" the project? Why was the sequel pushed back because of Justice League? Its quite obvious Warner Bros. wanted "Spiderman" money and they got a Box Office intake just a bit more than Batman Begins.. Also if they only wanted "Batman Begins" money, why the huge budget? Its not because of the development hell that the budget was 209 million. The movie alone costs that much. I think the Wikipedia seriously needs to stop feeding people crap that "Superman Returns did great at the Box Office" and start telling the truth that it underperformed at the Box Office and disappointed Warner Bros. It did not flop, but it sure disappointed. Also, many Superman fans were very disappointed at the lack of "action" in Superman Returns, the corny plot, no supervillain, and most importantly, Superman's characteristics. Superman was an irresponsible person. He knocked up Lois right before he left to find a planet he well knew was destroyed (Jor-El told him. He would believe stupid reports instead of his own father?) and he did not say goodbye to Lois and when he comes back, he expected Lois to "wait for him?" Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.69.248 ( talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow the third picture down is a bit .... a bit .... er
ThisMunkey ( talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is a bit...what? I don't see any problems with it.
Anakinjmt (
talk)
18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The way the man is in front of it but obscure and his jacket covers supermans leg but it blends with the mess on the floor. and it's easy to mistake for a bandy leg and spoils the picture. If it could be increased to include the anonymous persons features or make it larger so it's more clear some one is blocking the view. Apart from that the pictures are pretty good including this one but it does have that mad optical illusion.
ThisMunkey (
talk)
21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the aircraft he saved was not a 777 but a 757. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovietpilot ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is extremely biased and should be re-written. Words such as "crushed" and other opinionated adjectives are used liberally. 64.180.167.227 ( talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I added the material from the film series article to Superman_Returns#Sequel. We need something more than a link, and since the work is done, lets co-opt it. We can trim it back down, of course, but that link as a section looked off. rootology ( T) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a source that says Superman Returns followed Superman II, and that III and IV "don't count". I only recall seeing Singer say that in interviews, but at quick look can't find a source. [1] rootology ( T) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Superman Returns is not a relaunch. It still makes references to the original film series, like Lois Lane's My Night With Superman. C Teng [talk] 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article says at $260 million, it would have been the most expensive picture ever made. It is absurd to talk about movies, both budgets and box office returns, without factoring in inflation. The 1963 CLEOPATRA, at $43 million, translates into roughly a %300 million budget in 2008 dollars, and thus has been the most expensive film ever made for the past 45 years. I know the nerds and fanboys that lovingly cobble together these Wiki articles want the objects of their wet dream to be the best, but Wikipedia is doing a disservice to its readers not to tell the facts. Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the reason why Donner Cut should be in the template. It's not an official movie, never was, what do you think Donner Cut means? That's right, it means director's cut. Now do me a favor and prove me wrong. I have seen the special features, and according to them, it is a director's cut, not a theatrical movie. If anything belongs there it's the next Superman movie, Man Of Steel I believe it's gonna be called. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any sources that say it preceded it? Which sources, if so? rootology ( C)( T) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The opening section mentions that the film "was met with negative fan reaction". I don't personally know if this is true or not, but the reference given certainly doesn't seem adequete: it's just a bit of news on superherohype, which makes no actual judgement, and then a ton of comments from users. As far as I know, user comments cannot be used as a representative source of overall fan reaction. Prophaniti ( talk) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good.
The link checker found some issues:
I'm going to pause the review here - the number of referencing problems in "Casting" is ridiculous. Please check that all statements in all parts of the artcile are supported by valid refs that are still accessible, and post a note here when you've done. I will then restart the review from the top. If I find any referencing issues at all on the second pass, I will assess this article as a "fail". -- Philcha ( talk) 12:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone doing anything about the referencing problems? I seel there have been a few edits since I posted this review, but the edit summaries say nothing about dealing with these issues. I expect the issues to be dealt with within a week, otherwise I will have to assess this article as "failed GA". -- Philcha ( talk) 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There's been no reponse about the referencing issues. This article has failed to reach GA standard. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:49, 14 February 2009 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
There are a great deal of references in this article, but many are not considered reliable for a wiki reference and the first one I clicked on no longer exist. This needs to be addressed as well.-- Amadscientist 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
From here, I found the following:
Hope you can make use of some of these print sources. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Somebody, whose only ID is User:71.224.69.248, keeps vandalizing this page saying that the film "failed" at the box office, "sucked" according to many reviews, and that "Superman fans were appalled to see Superman be an irresponsible father", etc etc. Not very neutral POV. I don't want an edit war to be the end result, nor do I wish to be a nagger, but whoever you are, please stop making false edits on this page. The film was, for your information, well-received and did average at the box office, but it was not a flop. The reviews and critic reception were about 76-77% positive, and many fans enjoyed the film. Please stop doing this, or I will have to report this. User:Cluebert 9 January 2008 11:35 P.M (UTC)
For the love of God why does people insist on saying Superman Returns did "really good" at the Box Office? It did not.. Warner Bros. was indeed disappointed with the Box Office intake. If they were not than why the heck is there no script or any hard good news for the sequel? Why did the Writer's Strike delay production? Why did the Singer's writing pals "leave" the project? Why was the sequel pushed back because of Justice League? Its quite obvious Warner Bros. wanted "Spiderman" money and they got a Box Office intake just a bit more than Batman Begins.. Also if they only wanted "Batman Begins" money, why the huge budget? Its not because of the development hell that the budget was 209 million. The movie alone costs that much. I think the Wikipedia seriously needs to stop feeding people crap that "Superman Returns did great at the Box Office" and start telling the truth that it underperformed at the Box Office and disappointed Warner Bros. It did not flop, but it sure disappointed. Also, many Superman fans were very disappointed at the lack of "action" in Superman Returns, the corny plot, no supervillain, and most importantly, Superman's characteristics. Superman was an irresponsible person. He knocked up Lois right before he left to find a planet he well knew was destroyed (Jor-El told him. He would believe stupid reports instead of his own father?) and he did not say goodbye to Lois and when he comes back, he expected Lois to "wait for him?" Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.69.248 ( talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow the third picture down is a bit .... a bit .... er
ThisMunkey ( talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is a bit...what? I don't see any problems with it.
Anakinjmt (
talk)
18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The way the man is in front of it but obscure and his jacket covers supermans leg but it blends with the mess on the floor. and it's easy to mistake for a bandy leg and spoils the picture. If it could be increased to include the anonymous persons features or make it larger so it's more clear some one is blocking the view. Apart from that the pictures are pretty good including this one but it does have that mad optical illusion.
ThisMunkey (
talk)
21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the aircraft he saved was not a 777 but a 757. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovietpilot ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is extremely biased and should be re-written. Words such as "crushed" and other opinionated adjectives are used liberally. 64.180.167.227 ( talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I added the material from the film series article to Superman_Returns#Sequel. We need something more than a link, and since the work is done, lets co-opt it. We can trim it back down, of course, but that link as a section looked off. rootology ( T) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a source that says Superman Returns followed Superman II, and that III and IV "don't count". I only recall seeing Singer say that in interviews, but at quick look can't find a source. [1] rootology ( T) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Superman Returns is not a relaunch. It still makes references to the original film series, like Lois Lane's My Night With Superman. C Teng [talk] 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article says at $260 million, it would have been the most expensive picture ever made. It is absurd to talk about movies, both budgets and box office returns, without factoring in inflation. The 1963 CLEOPATRA, at $43 million, translates into roughly a %300 million budget in 2008 dollars, and thus has been the most expensive film ever made for the past 45 years. I know the nerds and fanboys that lovingly cobble together these Wiki articles want the objects of their wet dream to be the best, but Wikipedia is doing a disservice to its readers not to tell the facts. Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the reason why Donner Cut should be in the template. It's not an official movie, never was, what do you think Donner Cut means? That's right, it means director's cut. Now do me a favor and prove me wrong. I have seen the special features, and according to them, it is a director's cut, not a theatrical movie. If anything belongs there it's the next Superman movie, Man Of Steel I believe it's gonna be called. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any sources that say it preceded it? Which sources, if so? rootology ( C)( T) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The opening section mentions that the film "was met with negative fan reaction". I don't personally know if this is true or not, but the reference given certainly doesn't seem adequete: it's just a bit of news on superherohype, which makes no actual judgement, and then a ton of comments from users. As far as I know, user comments cannot be used as a representative source of overall fan reaction. Prophaniti ( talk) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good.
The link checker found some issues:
I'm going to pause the review here - the number of referencing problems in "Casting" is ridiculous. Please check that all statements in all parts of the artcile are supported by valid refs that are still accessible, and post a note here when you've done. I will then restart the review from the top. If I find any referencing issues at all on the second pass, I will assess this article as a "fail". -- Philcha ( talk) 12:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone doing anything about the referencing problems? I seel there have been a few edits since I posted this review, but the edit summaries say nothing about dealing with these issues. I expect the issues to be dealt with within a week, otherwise I will have to assess this article as "failed GA". -- Philcha ( talk) 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There's been no reponse about the referencing issues. This article has failed to reach GA standard. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)