Template talk:Live-action theatrical films based on DC Comics

message: 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)
replies: text: First off, there is no need to seperate the articles, and secondly there will be potential reboots in future Batman films, so the title of the second article is wrong. Alientraveller 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the title is wrong, I'd like to do a move to something like Batman Film Series(Nolan), and Batman Film Series(Burton/Schumacher), with a disambig article at the current page. I agree more can come, but look at the current page, which currently purports that all six are in one franchise and continuity, though we know that to be untrue. ThuranX 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, it's one series built around one character. And the article can just note "Batman Begins rebooted the franchise". I mean Casino Royale is also a reboot, but it's still a Bond movie. Alientraveller 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be based around one character, isn't it worth considering that the story lines are of a different continuity?... which is really not an issue with James Bond films. Just a thought. Though to distinguish the two may reqiure a fair bit of research. I like how the two franchises have been distinguished in the one article though, but feel that there should be a removal of the 1966 Batman film added to article as it's not of a movie franchise, thus not having a film series. Just my opinion. => Harish101 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only reason they're in the same group is that they're based around the same character, then there is no reason not to include the 1960s film as well. --138.130.113.12 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nolan's Batman is about as related to Burton/Schumacher's Batman as Raimi's Spider-Man is to Webb's Spider-Man and the same applies to Snyder's Superman. There needs to be some consistancy here. Either seperate Batman into two series or add Webb's Spider-Man to the Spider-Man group of the Marvel films template.--124.183.155.100 (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  batman franchise links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut 

message: 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)
replies: text: I considered that, but since there are a number of them, and they constitute a very different feel, as opposed to big budget blockbusters, I left it. It's sa stylistic thing, pure and simple; to me, it's good, to other's, maybe not so much. If you think it really ought to go, you can take it out, but I personally like it. I intend to use the same phrase on my Indie comics film template, so it will match the pending other template, but it doesn't right now. your call, and thanks for the review. ThuranX 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: It was at one time, but was later moved to the single film section. I think that the reasoning was that it was sort of like Steel. Although both have ties to Superman, the ties weren't emphasized in the movies, and not in any press I could find either. If you can find WP:RS showing the intent at the time to see Supergirl as a part of the Superman franchise, then we could relocate it. Elektra was deliberately and publicly spoken of as a direct offshoot of the Daredevil movie, so we can point to sources for that. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marc McClure plays Jimmy Olsen in Supergirl as he did in the four Chris Reeve/Superman films. That's a direct tie-in. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you and your WP:OR. Find citations. I'm not saying no, i'm saying find evidence. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I give a f***** f*** what you say. The presence of the actor/character names in the on-screen credits of all five films is evidence. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider this a formal Civility warning. Knock it off, and redact your comment, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I stuck Supergirl at the end. It may be part of the same wider continuity, but is not a linear 'chapter' in the story. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX, you are the last person to be giving formal civility warnings (see your posting of 8 December 2008, targeting me, in the above thread "Some consistency" for one example). At least I censored myself, which makes your "redact" order senseless. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Supergirl & Superman franchise

message: 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)
replies: text: Separate template for TV. ThuranX (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now up. I included the It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman musical play adaptation and the two late 70s campy Legends of the Superheroes specials. Still wouldn't be surprised if there's something else. Additions and improvements are encouraged. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live action & TV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Justice League franchise 

message: 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)
replies: text: Films should stick to "like" characters, ie all Superman together, all Batman together, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

text: yeah, well let me say this, it says franchises, that means continuity, so in your face  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Please see the  as an example. So far, all DC shared universe films are Superman franchise films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC Cinematic Universe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice should count as a Batman and Superman film. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 1. There are subsections for the respective Donner and Burton Superman and Batman franchises...?
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.  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)
thread_title: Listing the DC Extended Universe as a franchise

message: *Even though it is follows the events of Man of Steel, both Batman and Superman are getting equal treatment in this film. In fact, Ben Affleck is getting top billing over Henry Cavill in the credits. Because of this unique circumstance, I believe that it should be in the Single Films section as it straddles both the Batman and Superman categories. Richiekim (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've suggested putting Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman in a separate DC Extended Universe section to avoid this type of confusion, but that idea got shot down (as you can see above)... unless you two think it's a good idea?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't think that's a good idea Firefly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While Henry Cavill stated that he didn't see it as being a true sequel, Zack Snyder later revealed that it to him, Batman v Superman is in fact a true sequel to Man of Steel since it organically continues the story or something like that. Leave it where it is and if it bugs you, look for the interview. --Schmeater (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Batman v Superman should be in the Single Films category

message: 182.69.123.174 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is listed under 2013 for Superman. There's been a lot of discussion about this on the talk page above and there's no consensus to add a second link to Batman's section.  EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2016 

message: 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)
replies: text: As a "franchise" Suicide Squad is a single film. As for BvS under Superman, it was originally mentioned by Snyder/Warners etc. as the sequel to Man of Steel, but I think as it evolved, that stance has changed, and it is more a single film now, given a Man of Steel sequel is being developed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But Suicide Squad isn't a franchise or a single film.  It is part of the DCEU franchise.  What you're suggesting above sounds like WP:OR.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the template is grouping films by character franchises, then no, nothing I have stated is made up. That is how the template is sorted by for the "Franchise" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you suggesting that this needs to be grouped by character?  The character isn't the franchise when it comes to the DCEU.  Batman v Superman is not part of a single Batman or a Superman franchise, but the DCEU franchise.  To suggest otherwise is WP:OR.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting it; I'm telling you that that is what the consensus has been established for the sorting of the navbox. If you don't like that, form a new consensus to change the sorting from franchises centered on characters, to something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that consensus.  What I see is on this talk page is a number of editors suggesting, like me, that the current format is not the correct way of presenting the information, and no real discussion since more films were released/announced.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 4 movies released and 16 planned in the DCEU. 1 is listed under Superman, 1 will probably get listed under Batman. That leaves 17 movies from the same franchise listed as "single movies" when they clearly are not. Brooza (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Since the template is about films not the comics is more logical that DCEU films are listed together rather than being scatered around. DoctorHver (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. We have a link in "See also" to the DCEU article, but given there are vastly more films not in the DCEU, it is still a better organizing tool to sort by Franchise (characters), with single films also added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are the only one advocating for DCEU films to be listed as single films. Which of course is wrong DoctorHver (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that Favre1fan93 unable to handle any reasonable changes to the template, It does seems to me that  Rob Sinden's points are all completely valid that DCEU films make up a franchise and should not be listed as singular films as Rob said its incorrect way of presenting the information and the temple doesn't match the articles that are being presented, I have tried to insert this change to Temple with little result, because of Mr Farve. I would suggest that this being put up for vote if that the proper way to establish an consensus on the issue, if not sure mr Farve will ever see the light of his error.     DoctorHver (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I keep telling you, there isn't consensus to change as you keep doing. Yes this discussion is here, but there isn't consensus. There is nothing wrong with the format now, having the franchises by characters, and an appropriate link to the DCEU in the see also section. So yes, we can keep discussing here if you wish, but as it stands, there isn't consensus to alter the formatting. And that can change if more discussion is had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum, maintaining a wrong presentation of content does not sound very reasonable or logical or consensus to me at all Rob Sinden's, comments previously are completely reasonable as I have already said, and what has been established in 2013 is completely outdated now in 2017, with the 5th DCEU film coming out in Novemeber 2017. Now I do see several other wrongs with the current setup. Well Let me start with the name, The template is called DC Comics films, if that means films should be shorted into the franchises they belong not based on what individual characters appears in since the name of the template is not DC Comics films by Characters, in that case both 2 Batman serials, and 2 Superman serials shouldnot be included within the list temple serial f or singular serials,  but within Franchies, and under Batman and then Superman, since we are including 1966 Batman film under Batman not as singular film. The same should also actually then apply to Batman vs Superman (2015) should be listed twice once with Superman and once with Batman. Then  and then every single movie should get its own subsection as they are based after all on various different source materials. So the current setup actually contradicts itself in various ways. its just unfortunate that certain someone doesn't see it DoctorHver (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "DC Extended Universe" as a franchise. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Inclusion of ''Joker'' as a Batman film

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggested modifications

message: 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)
replies: text: 100%, I agree the imprints should be seperated from the main DC cannon. Its actually confusing as its currently. DoctorHver (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'DC Imprint' Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template layout 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Green Mansions