![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following is the critique and comments on this template (and another for indie comic films i'm still working on), to demonstrate that this is not just one person's efforts, and to show why certain choices were made. Please do NOT edit this section, but create new ones for new comments, thank you.
The templates look good, but can I suggest using something thicker than the bullets used between titles? Instead of ·, use •. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of other items: There should be spacing between "Batman (year)" in the first template. Also, Batman got split, while Superman didn't (and I realize the latter has an odd continuity issue). Is there a way to address this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, what about The Crow: Salvation and The Crow: Wicked Prayer for the second template? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job on it so far, bro. Just a few random questions and stuff though. With the DC template; what about adding the (dreadful, in my opinion) 1997 Justice League of America film *shudders*...? Also, have you considered adding in an animated films section, as there are two new ones in the pipeline ( Justice League: The New Frontier and Superman: Doomsday)? There are many older ones from the 90's or more recently (i.e. The Batman Superman Movie, inspired by the animated TV shows) but I couldn't find the right links. About the superheroe and non-superhero DC films - is it worth splitting the likes of Catwoman from Road To Perdition, for example? Another thing is that I noticed you've got the Batman film in the 'single films' section highlighted along with the year which will need editing. Lastly, I just wanted to add that as you've mentioned, I agree that the serials are of no real interest. Just throwing that in. With the indie comics template; I noticed that The Mask is down twice (the franchise, which is understandable, AND with the single films). Also, The Crow unfortunately had a third film, The Crow: Stairway to Heaven. You may want to add it to the franchise. That's about all for now. Didn't mean to nit pick or anything, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm glad someone's done this DC one though, been thinking who's gonna get it done. Thanks for the template so far. Keep it up. => Harish101 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, just curious to know when this will actually get put to use? One more thought, since I'm back here - where the franchises section is, as this is more about the films I was wondering if it's necessary to link the parts that say "Batman(1989-97)" and "Batman(2005 - )" twice to the same Batman page, along with linking Swamp Thing? Just wondered. Didn't seem entirely necessary, from a user's point of view (mainly Batman, unless you can link it to the film series pages, or even considering having two pages, one of which for the reboot franchise). Just putting in ideas as I assume you can do something about that. =>
Harish101
13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the change, because I'd like to see those two articles fully overhauled and divided appropriately, and I'd like to make that an impending task. As such, steering new editors to both would hopefully result in better cooperation and attention to the mess that is there now. ThuranX 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the film be added next to Superman II on the template? I figure it should be on there at least, but another thing - to save taking too much space how about just typing in 'The Richard Donner Cut (2006)' next to it? Just some thoughts... => Harish101 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks really good! I might remove "The" from "The Serials" since neither of the other two categories use that definite article. Great effort! -- Tenebrae 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think eliminating the Captain Marvel and Blackhawk serials is a bad idea- they may not originally have been DC properties, but they are considered "DC" now, and should be recognized as such. If they're not added, then entries like V For Vendetta and Road to Perdition should certainly be removed, as the source material on which these films were based were never owned by DC in the first place- they're creator-owned works that were distributed by DC Comics. ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times have I assumed that a lack of further response meant that the other party agreed with me but did not want to come out and say so, did the edits, and got reverted, with them making the claim that they "were tired of talking to a brick wall" (when the reality was they never dealt with anything I posted in the talk page discussion)? Quite a few. I don't care how long its been, I completely disagree for good reason, and reserve the right to reopen the discussion. I came to this page because my gut reaction upon seeing the template was to post a disagreement with some things present and some absent, and found this thread. There was nothing personal about the attack, but it was strictly encyclopedia business: the behavior described has occurred and is problematical to resolving a content dispute on its own merits. Your angry, venomous and profane reply here is more of what I was talking about.
I knew that Vendetta was unfinished the first time around, in the UK. I still submit that, since the name of the template is "DC Comics films," adaptations of things that they published only by license, especially something that began somewhere else, is not relevant, but films of properties that they now and for sometime have owned outright, and the original owners no longer exist as such (Fawcett does exist, but that's the parent company who've been out of the comic book business for 55 years, and Quality ceased to exist at the time DC bought the properties), are. As for the "development hell" statement, I defy you to go back, read what you actually posted there, and tell me it does not suggest that things currently in development hell should be in the template but would be "unlistable" by Chris Stansfield's terms. -- Ted Watson ( talk) 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On the Marvel Comics template, Daredevil is listed as a franchise, with the film Daredevil and the "spin-off" film Elektra. Using that logic, should not the "spin-off" film Supergirl be removed from the single films section and placed amongst the Superman franchise films?
From what I understand, it was created with the purpose of expanding the Superman franchise of movies, and I think belongs in that section.-- Tim Thomason 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we can ignore the fight that is brewing... A google search shows that the book Superman on Film, Television, Radio, and Broadway - Page 101 by Bruce Scivally cites Supergirl as "in continuity" with the Superman films (based on Olsen's appearance). This site ( graphicnovelscomics.suite101.com/article.cfm/supergirl_on_film_and_television ) seems legit to me (is it citable?) and states that the McClure Olsen ties Supergirl into "the Superman franchise." I think we should once again change the template to reflect this info, given that the Supergirl/Superman movies (with the possible exception of Superman Returns) all share actors and producers, whereas Steel does not.-- Tim Thomason 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Put Donner cut after #2, and returns at the end, and we're good to go. I'll do it now. ThuranX ( talk) 02:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Prompted by the new Human Target TV series, I checked the listings of DC Comics templates, and there isn't one for live action TV productions. There are certainly enough of them: Adventures of Superman, the unsold Superboy pilot, the camp 1960s Batman series, Saturday morning's Shazam! (DC hadn't bought the property yet, but they were already publishing it), the unsold Wonder Woman TV movie/pilot and subsequent movie/pilot & series, the syndicated Superboy series, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, the first Human Target series, the Flash show, Birds of Prey and Smallville I can think of off the top of my head, and I'd be very surprised if I haven't missed something. As indicated in the archive-boxed thread above, the title of this template as it still stands is ambiguous toward both TV and animation, which in any event needs to be corrected. I feel the primary point here is live action adaptations, and the distinction between big and small screens is not that important; after all, the serials are short subjects! Two additional sections, "TV series" and "TV movies" ("TV movies & specials"?) would cover that. Anyone else want to comment? -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Animated films is the same topic of this one but in this case since there are so many animated films it needed to have an split navbox. So this time there needs to be a main navbox link sort of like a main article hatnote and also similiar to Template:Pokémon and Template:Pokémon spin-offs and there has been no official guideline on this one. (If you are lucky there is a essay on it and I would recommend a change on it if so) I also don't feel like it's not necessary. Now there can be other alternatives to fix the problem but I recommend discussing it over edit war. So no reverting until we have this settled here and I hear a few opinions from other editors who are familiar with this. I have my resources to find out since I have been around with working with many navboxes for and noticed many different styles. Jhenderson 777 17:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Jhenderson 777 18:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the fall back to the pre-May version:
IIUC a "series" in film is defined as a group of films that roughly link together in one continuity. And a "franchise" is a property that is used across numerous films regardless of continuity. Right now we're stretching "series" to encompass two separate continuities under "Batman" and include a potential stand alone film under "Superman". The theatrically release, television derived films don't fit under the term "series" even as stretched as we're using it.
The stretch is enough to argue that the group should be retitled "Film franchises". But in doing that the serials should be incorporated and the the sub-group headers should reflect more accurately what is listed. So "Batman" gets 4:
And "Superman" gets 3:
The Bat-franchise standalone section might also wind up including Catwoman, as bitter as that may be.
At this point Man of Steel is a stand alone film with no guarantee that a additional films following its continuity will actually be produced.
As for the link to {{ DC Comics animated films}}, frankly that both templates intersect at List of films based on DC Comics should be sufficient navigation between the two. There is no reason to dump readers out of the navbox on a template page.
On a side note, if there is a consensus to shift "series" to "franchise" there may be grounds to merge the two tempates. Thought that may cause an issue with how the animated films are grouped which is by "brand".
- J Greb ( talk) 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- J Greb ( talk) 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I am fine with the template the way it is. However, with the BvS film also fitting into the Batman category, I am sure that controversy is going to arise over its position on this template. While there is no concrete evidence to support it, it should be pretty obvious to any observer of this industry that BvS is going to be followed by a Justice League film. For this reason, I propose that only when such a movie goes into production and has its own article that MoS and BvS be moved from the Superman section into a "Justice League" section and until that day comes, the status quo should be maintained. This avoids any alternate made-up names such as "DC Cinematic Universe" becoming necessary. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well given Warner's just announced 10 films, I say we brach that off into its own justice league column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I say we move man of steel, batman v superman, suicide squad, Wonder Woman, justice league 1, flash, aquaman, shaman, justice league 2, cyborg, and the green lantern reboot into a new section called the dc cinematic universe seeing as they are technically part of the same franchise. By the way lets move the 1966 batman film and superman and the mole man into the signal film category as no other films were made based on the them. Let's also move the 2011 green lantern into the signal films category as well seeing as it will have no sequels. And finally, let's move all of the films that were based on dc imprints into its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 ( talk) 02:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Italic text== DC Shared universe ==
Will someone please unlock this. Any way I suggest that we branch all the films set in the Dc shared universe into a separate franchise column than superman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, well if you wanna pretend these films are all separate universes, fine, be idiots
I know Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a sequel to Man of Steel, but I really think it should also be part of the Batman franchise, because the names Batman and Superman are both in the title. -- StewieBaby05 ( talk) 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.
Knowing how zealous some Wikipedia users are, I decided to write my justification for removing Man of Steel and Batman v Superman from the Superman franchise list and Batman v Superman from the Batman franchise list, and instead create DC Extended Universe franchise.
1) Setting up the franchises based on character is the way the Marvel movies template does, but this template does NOT have to be that. None of the Marvel franchises have been through has many iterations and versions as the Batman and Superman franchises have.
2) The respective films all relate to one another, these are not "standalones" but rather films that bleed into one another, a cinematic universe. It looks like Batman will appear in Suicide Squad, does that make it a Batman movie? Having a consistent DC Extended Universe section of this template has one unified area, not a bunch of individual characters and franchises vying for attention even they though they are all related.
3) It eliminates confusion. Is Batman v Superman a Batman movie? A Superman movie? Does it belong in one section or both? For now, I think putting it in the DC Extended Universe section prevents this type of confusion and bickering about what goes where.
Please add to the discussion if you agree or disagree, but please do not delete my changes until consensus is met. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
1. You'd have to create a franchise for virtually every type (example Donner, Burton etc); which we don't, due to reboots, hence why the current scheme for each character is perfect.
2. Suicide Squad isn't a Batman film though, and an appearance of a character, even more so a cameo, doesn't change that.
3. A feeble argument regarding the placement of such a scheme, purely for the third point. You can easily deal with that by listing Dawn of Justice within the single film section, or bearing in mind Snyder's comments of the Man of Steel sequel; issue solves.-- Bartallen2 ( talk) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Whose to say? What are the criteria for being Batman film? Based on my experience, we'll have to reach a consensus about whether or not it does count eventually rather then laying down a ruling now that can apply for the rest of forever now. There is no avoiding that conversation, so might as well address it now with a move that avoids controversy and contention later down the line.
3. The edits, as you undid them, now mean Batman v. Superman is listed twice. So, under your model, we're going with redundancy over efficiency? Nevermind, this isn't the case anymore, but again I would argue that this solution would nip further discussion or conversation about whether Batman v. Superman is a Batman film or a Superman film in the bud forever.
A lot of your responses to my point strike me as unnecessarily petty. It just basically boils down to you saying "no, it's not like that" in response to my questions. This is to start a discussion, not shoot down any contrarian opinion, I would prefer you stating as a whole why you are opposed to this idea rather than nit-picking arguments against individual questions I proposed. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:DC Comics films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.69.123.174 ( talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Add Batman V Superman to Batman Subsection with the Year 2015
It is not correct to list Suicide Squad and the upcoming DCEU films as "single films". Listing Batman v Superman as a "Superman" film is also misleading. As they are not single films, or purely Superman films, but all part of the same continuity, the only way to correctly assign these films in here is as a single franchise, starting with Man of Steel, which they are. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Since it is categorised as a Batman film in multiple articles, shouldn't Joker appear in the "Batman" section? -- King Remils ( talk) 13:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC).
I already tried to make the Joker suggestion above, but it was ignored. I found out that I think a reorganisation of the navbox should be done: I think that DCEU films should be identified by a symbol (as I already tried to do, but the edit was legitimately reversed) with an explaining legend below; I think the division between serials and feature films should be removed, at least for serials that could make part of a franchise (that could also be resolved with a "serial" symbol, if really needed); I would also like to point out that a division between films based on DC Universe works and others could be done, because, for example, the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film is not based on a work set in the Multiverse, but rather a distinct and non-co-existant reality. -- King Remils ( talk) 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC).
Echoing the comment above, should there be a DC Imprint section for film based off properties that aren't set in the DC Canon? For example the 'Red' franchise, Road to Perdition & The Kitchen to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5C89:BF00:3C0F:D5F5:BB33:B4A2 ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Per recent changes, it makes sense that the imprint films are not stated above franchises about DC Comics proper films. Additionally, the Suicide Squad, Swamp Thing, and Wonder Woman franchise subheadings do not need further year subheadings because there have only been one set of films for each, unlike Batman and Superman, who have had multiple and need delineations. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Green Mansions is kind of the reverse in that there was a DC comic book inspired by it ( Rima, the Jungle Girl, who even appeared on Super Friends). Being that it's owned by Warner Bros., it would at least be "of interest" even though it's more of a drama than an action film (I've seen it, but my memories of it have gotten vague). I thought it would be better to mention it here rather than boldly at it to the template. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 00:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Contstantine is a character in the DC canon and should be with 'Single Films' like Jonah Hex & Green Lantern
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following is the critique and comments on this template (and another for indie comic films i'm still working on), to demonstrate that this is not just one person's efforts, and to show why certain choices were made. Please do NOT edit this section, but create new ones for new comments, thank you.
The templates look good, but can I suggest using something thicker than the bullets used between titles? Instead of ·, use •. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of other items: There should be spacing between "Batman (year)" in the first template. Also, Batman got split, while Superman didn't (and I realize the latter has an odd continuity issue). Is there a way to address this? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, what about The Crow: Salvation and The Crow: Wicked Prayer for the second template? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job on it so far, bro. Just a few random questions and stuff though. With the DC template; what about adding the (dreadful, in my opinion) 1997 Justice League of America film *shudders*...? Also, have you considered adding in an animated films section, as there are two new ones in the pipeline ( Justice League: The New Frontier and Superman: Doomsday)? There are many older ones from the 90's or more recently (i.e. The Batman Superman Movie, inspired by the animated TV shows) but I couldn't find the right links. About the superheroe and non-superhero DC films - is it worth splitting the likes of Catwoman from Road To Perdition, for example? Another thing is that I noticed you've got the Batman film in the 'single films' section highlighted along with the year which will need editing. Lastly, I just wanted to add that as you've mentioned, I agree that the serials are of no real interest. Just throwing that in. With the indie comics template; I noticed that The Mask is down twice (the franchise, which is understandable, AND with the single films). Also, The Crow unfortunately had a third film, The Crow: Stairway to Heaven. You may want to add it to the franchise. That's about all for now. Didn't mean to nit pick or anything, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm glad someone's done this DC one though, been thinking who's gonna get it done. Thanks for the template so far. Keep it up. => Harish101 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, just curious to know when this will actually get put to use? One more thought, since I'm back here - where the franchises section is, as this is more about the films I was wondering if it's necessary to link the parts that say "Batman(1989-97)" and "Batman(2005 - )" twice to the same Batman page, along with linking Swamp Thing? Just wondered. Didn't seem entirely necessary, from a user's point of view (mainly Batman, unless you can link it to the film series pages, or even considering having two pages, one of which for the reboot franchise). Just putting in ideas as I assume you can do something about that. =>
Harish101
13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the change, because I'd like to see those two articles fully overhauled and divided appropriately, and I'd like to make that an impending task. As such, steering new editors to both would hopefully result in better cooperation and attention to the mess that is there now. ThuranX 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the film be added next to Superman II on the template? I figure it should be on there at least, but another thing - to save taking too much space how about just typing in 'The Richard Donner Cut (2006)' next to it? Just some thoughts... => Harish101 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks really good! I might remove "The" from "The Serials" since neither of the other two categories use that definite article. Great effort! -- Tenebrae 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think eliminating the Captain Marvel and Blackhawk serials is a bad idea- they may not originally have been DC properties, but they are considered "DC" now, and should be recognized as such. If they're not added, then entries like V For Vendetta and Road to Perdition should certainly be removed, as the source material on which these films were based were never owned by DC in the first place- they're creator-owned works that were distributed by DC Comics. ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times have I assumed that a lack of further response meant that the other party agreed with me but did not want to come out and say so, did the edits, and got reverted, with them making the claim that they "were tired of talking to a brick wall" (when the reality was they never dealt with anything I posted in the talk page discussion)? Quite a few. I don't care how long its been, I completely disagree for good reason, and reserve the right to reopen the discussion. I came to this page because my gut reaction upon seeing the template was to post a disagreement with some things present and some absent, and found this thread. There was nothing personal about the attack, but it was strictly encyclopedia business: the behavior described has occurred and is problematical to resolving a content dispute on its own merits. Your angry, venomous and profane reply here is more of what I was talking about.
I knew that Vendetta was unfinished the first time around, in the UK. I still submit that, since the name of the template is "DC Comics films," adaptations of things that they published only by license, especially something that began somewhere else, is not relevant, but films of properties that they now and for sometime have owned outright, and the original owners no longer exist as such (Fawcett does exist, but that's the parent company who've been out of the comic book business for 55 years, and Quality ceased to exist at the time DC bought the properties), are. As for the "development hell" statement, I defy you to go back, read what you actually posted there, and tell me it does not suggest that things currently in development hell should be in the template but would be "unlistable" by Chris Stansfield's terms. -- Ted Watson ( talk) 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On the Marvel Comics template, Daredevil is listed as a franchise, with the film Daredevil and the "spin-off" film Elektra. Using that logic, should not the "spin-off" film Supergirl be removed from the single films section and placed amongst the Superman franchise films?
From what I understand, it was created with the purpose of expanding the Superman franchise of movies, and I think belongs in that section.-- Tim Thomason 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we can ignore the fight that is brewing... A google search shows that the book Superman on Film, Television, Radio, and Broadway - Page 101 by Bruce Scivally cites Supergirl as "in continuity" with the Superman films (based on Olsen's appearance). This site ( graphicnovelscomics.suite101.com/article.cfm/supergirl_on_film_and_television ) seems legit to me (is it citable?) and states that the McClure Olsen ties Supergirl into "the Superman franchise." I think we should once again change the template to reflect this info, given that the Supergirl/Superman movies (with the possible exception of Superman Returns) all share actors and producers, whereas Steel does not.-- Tim Thomason 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Put Donner cut after #2, and returns at the end, and we're good to go. I'll do it now. ThuranX ( talk) 02:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Prompted by the new Human Target TV series, I checked the listings of DC Comics templates, and there isn't one for live action TV productions. There are certainly enough of them: Adventures of Superman, the unsold Superboy pilot, the camp 1960s Batman series, Saturday morning's Shazam! (DC hadn't bought the property yet, but they were already publishing it), the unsold Wonder Woman TV movie/pilot and subsequent movie/pilot & series, the syndicated Superboy series, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, the first Human Target series, the Flash show, Birds of Prey and Smallville I can think of off the top of my head, and I'd be very surprised if I haven't missed something. As indicated in the archive-boxed thread above, the title of this template as it still stands is ambiguous toward both TV and animation, which in any event needs to be corrected. I feel the primary point here is live action adaptations, and the distinction between big and small screens is not that important; after all, the serials are short subjects! Two additional sections, "TV series" and "TV movies" ("TV movies & specials"?) would cover that. Anyone else want to comment? -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Animated films is the same topic of this one but in this case since there are so many animated films it needed to have an split navbox. So this time there needs to be a main navbox link sort of like a main article hatnote and also similiar to Template:Pokémon and Template:Pokémon spin-offs and there has been no official guideline on this one. (If you are lucky there is a essay on it and I would recommend a change on it if so) I also don't feel like it's not necessary. Now there can be other alternatives to fix the problem but I recommend discussing it over edit war. So no reverting until we have this settled here and I hear a few opinions from other editors who are familiar with this. I have my resources to find out since I have been around with working with many navboxes for and noticed many different styles. Jhenderson 777 17:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Jhenderson 777 18:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the fall back to the pre-May version:
IIUC a "series" in film is defined as a group of films that roughly link together in one continuity. And a "franchise" is a property that is used across numerous films regardless of continuity. Right now we're stretching "series" to encompass two separate continuities under "Batman" and include a potential stand alone film under "Superman". The theatrically release, television derived films don't fit under the term "series" even as stretched as we're using it.
The stretch is enough to argue that the group should be retitled "Film franchises". But in doing that the serials should be incorporated and the the sub-group headers should reflect more accurately what is listed. So "Batman" gets 4:
And "Superman" gets 3:
The Bat-franchise standalone section might also wind up including Catwoman, as bitter as that may be.
At this point Man of Steel is a stand alone film with no guarantee that a additional films following its continuity will actually be produced.
As for the link to {{ DC Comics animated films}}, frankly that both templates intersect at List of films based on DC Comics should be sufficient navigation between the two. There is no reason to dump readers out of the navbox on a template page.
On a side note, if there is a consensus to shift "series" to "franchise" there may be grounds to merge the two tempates. Thought that may cause an issue with how the animated films are grouped which is by "brand".
- J Greb ( talk) 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- J Greb ( talk) 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I am fine with the template the way it is. However, with the BvS film also fitting into the Batman category, I am sure that controversy is going to arise over its position on this template. While there is no concrete evidence to support it, it should be pretty obvious to any observer of this industry that BvS is going to be followed by a Justice League film. For this reason, I propose that only when such a movie goes into production and has its own article that MoS and BvS be moved from the Superman section into a "Justice League" section and until that day comes, the status quo should be maintained. This avoids any alternate made-up names such as "DC Cinematic Universe" becoming necessary. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well given Warner's just announced 10 films, I say we brach that off into its own justice league column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I say we move man of steel, batman v superman, suicide squad, Wonder Woman, justice league 1, flash, aquaman, shaman, justice league 2, cyborg, and the green lantern reboot into a new section called the dc cinematic universe seeing as they are technically part of the same franchise. By the way lets move the 1966 batman film and superman and the mole man into the signal film category as no other films were made based on the them. Let's also move the 2011 green lantern into the signal films category as well seeing as it will have no sequels. And finally, let's move all of the films that were based on dc imprints into its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 ( talk) 02:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Italic text== DC Shared universe ==
Will someone please unlock this. Any way I suggest that we branch all the films set in the Dc shared universe into a separate franchise column than superman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, well if you wanna pretend these films are all separate universes, fine, be idiots
I know Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a sequel to Man of Steel, but I really think it should also be part of the Batman franchise, because the names Batman and Superman are both in the title. -- StewieBaby05 ( talk) 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.
Knowing how zealous some Wikipedia users are, I decided to write my justification for removing Man of Steel and Batman v Superman from the Superman franchise list and Batman v Superman from the Batman franchise list, and instead create DC Extended Universe franchise.
1) Setting up the franchises based on character is the way the Marvel movies template does, but this template does NOT have to be that. None of the Marvel franchises have been through has many iterations and versions as the Batman and Superman franchises have.
2) The respective films all relate to one another, these are not "standalones" but rather films that bleed into one another, a cinematic universe. It looks like Batman will appear in Suicide Squad, does that make it a Batman movie? Having a consistent DC Extended Universe section of this template has one unified area, not a bunch of individual characters and franchises vying for attention even they though they are all related.
3) It eliminates confusion. Is Batman v Superman a Batman movie? A Superman movie? Does it belong in one section or both? For now, I think putting it in the DC Extended Universe section prevents this type of confusion and bickering about what goes where.
Please add to the discussion if you agree or disagree, but please do not delete my changes until consensus is met. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
1. You'd have to create a franchise for virtually every type (example Donner, Burton etc); which we don't, due to reboots, hence why the current scheme for each character is perfect.
2. Suicide Squad isn't a Batman film though, and an appearance of a character, even more so a cameo, doesn't change that.
3. A feeble argument regarding the placement of such a scheme, purely for the third point. You can easily deal with that by listing Dawn of Justice within the single film section, or bearing in mind Snyder's comments of the Man of Steel sequel; issue solves.-- Bartallen2 ( talk) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Whose to say? What are the criteria for being Batman film? Based on my experience, we'll have to reach a consensus about whether or not it does count eventually rather then laying down a ruling now that can apply for the rest of forever now. There is no avoiding that conversation, so might as well address it now with a move that avoids controversy and contention later down the line.
3. The edits, as you undid them, now mean Batman v. Superman is listed twice. So, under your model, we're going with redundancy over efficiency? Nevermind, this isn't the case anymore, but again I would argue that this solution would nip further discussion or conversation about whether Batman v. Superman is a Batman film or a Superman film in the bud forever.
A lot of your responses to my point strike me as unnecessarily petty. It just basically boils down to you saying "no, it's not like that" in response to my questions. This is to start a discussion, not shoot down any contrarian opinion, I would prefer you stating as a whole why you are opposed to this idea rather than nit-picking arguments against individual questions I proposed. Fireflyfanboy ( talk) 18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:DC Comics films has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.69.123.174 ( talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Add Batman V Superman to Batman Subsection with the Year 2015
It is not correct to list Suicide Squad and the upcoming DCEU films as "single films". Listing Batman v Superman as a "Superman" film is also misleading. As they are not single films, or purely Superman films, but all part of the same continuity, the only way to correctly assign these films in here is as a single franchise, starting with Man of Steel, which they are. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Since it is categorised as a Batman film in multiple articles, shouldn't Joker appear in the "Batman" section? -- King Remils ( talk) 13:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC).
I already tried to make the Joker suggestion above, but it was ignored. I found out that I think a reorganisation of the navbox should be done: I think that DCEU films should be identified by a symbol (as I already tried to do, but the edit was legitimately reversed) with an explaining legend below; I think the division between serials and feature films should be removed, at least for serials that could make part of a franchise (that could also be resolved with a "serial" symbol, if really needed); I would also like to point out that a division between films based on DC Universe works and others could be done, because, for example, the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film is not based on a work set in the Multiverse, but rather a distinct and non-co-existant reality. -- King Remils ( talk) 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC).
Echoing the comment above, should there be a DC Imprint section for film based off properties that aren't set in the DC Canon? For example the 'Red' franchise, Road to Perdition & The Kitchen to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5C89:BF00:3C0F:D5F5:BB33:B4A2 ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Per recent changes, it makes sense that the imprint films are not stated above franchises about DC Comics proper films. Additionally, the Suicide Squad, Swamp Thing, and Wonder Woman franchise subheadings do not need further year subheadings because there have only been one set of films for each, unlike Batman and Superman, who have had multiple and need delineations. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Green Mansions is kind of the reverse in that there was a DC comic book inspired by it ( Rima, the Jungle Girl, who even appeared on Super Friends). Being that it's owned by Warner Bros., it would at least be "of interest" even though it's more of a drama than an action film (I've seen it, but my memories of it have gotten vague). I thought it would be better to mention it here rather than boldly at it to the template. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 00:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Contstantine is a character in the DC canon and should be with 'Single Films' like Jonah Hex & Green Lantern