Talk:Superman Returns/Archive 3

message: The poster can be seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdlike/154767449/
It depicts a 747 with an engine on fire - which isn't a scene in the 2006 movie. Admittedly, it could just be a homage to the scene in the original Superman movie where lightning causes a plane engine fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.60.92 (talk) 26 August 2006
:If you put your mouse on the plane, it says that the person who posted that picture added the plane in himself. It was not in the orriginal poster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.151.26 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2007 PST
::No, that user took the original picture of the airplane and WB licensed it for use in the poster. So what about it? I don't think it should be in the article, but I may be missing your point, o editor from last August. —Fitch 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the 747 in some of the posters? 

message: There is no way this can succeed as a Good Article at this point. The criteria are listed as follows:
# Well-written.  The Plot, Sub-plot, Triva, and Connections are not well-written and are way too long and involved.  There are also too many sections.
# Factually accurate.  It does provide many references, that's good.  But it is largely "Original Research" and also the subject of many edit wars (see #5).
# Broad in its coverage.  That it is.
# Neutral point of view.  Some people think it is, some people think it isn't.
# Stable.  It is edited probably 50 times a day, though it may not "change significantly".  It certainly changes significantly in a matter of a few days.  It is also the subject of many edit wars, as can be seen by the talk page and it's archives.
# Images.  Pretty good here.
In my opinion, it fails 3 or 4 of the 6 criteria.  Why is this even being nominated now? -- Renesis13 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: Please do not change this edit I have made.  The information I have posted is factual information garnered from a site that has been used in regards to virtually every superhero article on this site.  Thanks. Scarletspeed7 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your edits have merit they will stand on their own. If they don't your appeal here won't stop people from removing them. CovenantD 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He/She's right. If you go to superherohype you will see the new article about Singer saying the exact same thing. Though, it would be good for them to go back and find the link and cite it. Bignole 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its clear now that there's going to be a sequel to "Superman Returns". All that business about "media sources say it has to make $200 million" and "its down to 750 theaters" are pointless inclusions at this point. 208.135.167.106 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel Section

message: I just came back to this, and reorganized the entire layout of the article to make it more logical, flowing, sequential, and readable. A lot of stuff that should be sub categories were parents and it had become a bit of a mess... The trivia and speculative stuff is absurdly long, and needs to be broken off into a child article (in a very, very bad way). If no one else feels like doing it I'll get it tomorrow. rootology (T) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Good Article Review is spot on, this article needs to be massively trimmed to remove the severe fanboy qualities.  That's not going to be easy until this film ages somewhat and fanboys move on...  Also, the "plot holes" section are not plot holes at all.  A plot hole is "something that doesn't make sense in the context of the plot".  A plot hole is not "something that is not yet explained but can have a very simple/rational explanation", "something that is ambiguous" or "something that is not yet resolved".  Jeff schiller 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: I forked off sub plots and unresolved stuff to Superman Returns (additional plot elements). It's just better there. rootology (T) 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't fork off a section into it's own page unless it can support an entire page. Those are merely sections of this article. They either should be including in this article or not at all. Bignole 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think there is enough there to support it? What if the massive trivia section were integrated with it into a superman storylines and trivia sort of article? rootology (T) 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's able to support a page now, but I don't know if it's proper to have an entire page of Trivia and/or plot holes. Bignole 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can sort it out later--if its prosefied it could be a good article on it's own. I'm trying to make the page structurally more like the other recommended ones for Casablanca and Revenge of the Sith. Hows it looking? rootology (T) 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem's not just with the structure but how it is written. The "trivia" sections can be reinserted if a better name can be created for them (i.e. Like the Allusions to other Lore or Past Superman media) something like that. If it has a purpose than fine. Also, you have to remember that this article is way too young to be considered. ROTS has been around for awhile and had other information (i.e. Awards) that can be added to it. This movie just came out 5 weeks ago, and hasn't existed long enough to have enough info to be considered a good article, or even a main attraction. Bignole 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I just mean I'd like to see it beat into shape now so that when it's aged a bit it can be ready to do structurally and content wise--that way any awards, DVD info, etc., can be just plugged in. Trivia needs a heavy rewrite for the best stuff to come back, not those massive bulky lists. I figured leaving that other page List format wise is a good idea, as it allows people to work on that and good/relevant factual stuff, and allows cherry picking of the 'best' material for the main article inclusion. rootology (T) 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superman Returns (additional plot elements)]] 

message: I cut some of it out, and restructured it a bit--if nothing else the segeration of sections could help us decide what to keep or lose. What do you guys think? rootology (T) 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you can never accurately gadge "fan reaction." It would be impossible to try and survey all the fans to see what they thought. This is why we use Rotten Tomatoes as a primary source, because it tends to use more than just a handful of critics, it tends to use dozens upon dozens of them. Bignole 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't really notice too much "the people think", but I did notice that just about everyone of those reaction sections had no sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and requires sources. It is too hard to accurately provide sources about fan reaction, as you cannot accurately measure fan reaction other than maybe by box office performance. And that's a maybe. I'm sorry, but it isn't something that's easily measured, thus the reason why Wiki doesn't want "fan reaction" sections...because you cannot cite them. Bignole 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You should learn the different between citing a source and just listing an external link. Tell me a source that can accurately measure fan reaction? I'll expect a source that has measured fanbase in the hundreds of thousands. Bignole 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Who says it did great in the theaters? I was under the impression that most people acknoweldge that it didn't go that well in the US (worldwide it did just fine, but not restricted to the US). What part of this page reads as if it was some blockbusting powerhouse? Bignole 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Worldwide it was successful. It grossed almost 400 million worldwide, that's pretty successful on a 200 mill budget. It wasn't a "great success", but it did its job. As for the reviews, it did receive mostly positive reviews..check Rotten Tomatoes, or Movies.go.com. They both lists multiple critics, with RT listing dozens upon dozens. Bignole 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Read all of the section. There are negative reviews in that section as well. BUT, it did receive more positive than negative, overwhelmingly more positive. That's just how it played out. We list the good with the bad, but just because there were some bad reviews doesn't mean that it was "mixed". The majority were good. I personally didn't like it, and was shocked by the number of good reviews for it. That section conforms to neutrality. Bignole 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ebert didn't like the movie, and gave it a negative review. NY Times and San Francisco Chronicle gave it bad reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has 235 reviews from it, and 176 of them are "fresh" (which means positive just in case you don't already know that). Unfortunately, as much as I didn't like the film, and the 56 critics counted at Rotten Tomatoes that didn't like the film, we are easily, verifiably outnumbered to those that did like the film. That is why the review section reads as it does. As for the "very successful" part, that is a quote (that needs a source btw) from the producer Alan Horn, and is in response to the topic of a sequel. This is his opinion about why he feels there will be a sequel, and does not violate a NPOV policy. Bignole 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, others don't share that opinion. The review section is rather NPOV. It has the good reviews and the bad ones. It doesn't say the film was a success, the producer of the film said that. The fact that he thinks that is irrelevant to the tone of the article, because the rest of the article isn't quoting every Dick, Tom and Harry about how "successful" the film was. That producer's quote was in context with why "there is going to be a sequel", in his opinion. You should read the whole thing. What you are mad about is the fact that we don't have tons of "fan reaction" saying how "terrible" the movie is. Wikipedia is not deal in speculation, and citing "fan reaction" is right next to citing speculation, because you cannot accurately measure fan reaction. Sorry, that's just how it is. As for Batman and Robin, I don't monitor those pages, and when I looked at them last they were in dire need of a lot of work (but I have too little time, and too many other articles to look after to deal with those). Bignole 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nathen, my God, why are you getting so worked up?? Where in the article does it say or even imply that Superman Returns is any kind of masterpiece? Some people loved it and some people didn't. You obviously didn't. The fact remains that verifiable evidence indicates that most reviewers liked the movie and gave it good reviews. You can't change their opinions, no matter how much you may not agree with them. The article clearly states that not all reviews were positive and gives examples of some bad reviews by very noteworthy critics. The overall tone of the Wikipedia article is very neutral, as it should be. I happened to like the movie quite a bit. However, people that hated the movie, though they seem to be in the minority, are very vocal about it and you can view their opinions on any number of websites; this includes fan forums on places like IMDB, where the overall consensus is that most of the people who posted liked the movie, but some obviously hated it and they really want you to know it. And you might fall in that category. That doesn't mean that the article needs to be altered, because it already makes allowances for both opinions. The fact of the matter is there are more people who liked the movie. The article itself does not offer an opinion about the movie, nor does it try to hide the fact that some people didn't like it. It also doesn't make the film out to be more successful than it was, and Warner Bros. executives are quoted as saying that they expected the film to do better. However, you do the math. An overall profit of about 400 million on a film that cost about 200 million is by no means a failure. Cris Varengo 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction Section 

message: In the screenshots used in this page, one of the fair use rationales used is:
:No free or public domain images have been located for this film.
Well... not quite.
Or I'm mistaken? Because at the lusophon wikipedia, where fair use is not allowed, I'm using "free or public domain images" that "have been located for this film".
FlavioTerceiro 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale 

message: I think we could break this up into other articles...
*The theatrical poster is good.
*Superman should stay, but I think that the Lois Lane and Lux Luther images could go to their respecitve articles.
*Production, original costume, and Brando images are good.
**Speaking of which, I think we should chose which Jor-El image to pick - the one on his page currently, with the Superman logo, or the one on this page.
*Teaser trailer poster is okay, but not necessary.
*I do not understand the purpose of the 777 or the Young Clark images.
*I think that :Image:ActioncomicsSRsimilar.jpg and :Image:Superman_as_Atlas.jpg are better off at List of Superman Returns plot elements and trivia.
*The video game cover looks fine, but not necessary (already decorates the video game quite well).
Thoughts? Hbdragon88 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not fair to take out the Bosworth and Spacey images, and then having nuumerous Routh ones (main poster, posing one...) Ditch the silly stuff which does not DIRECTLY relate to the film, ie the XBox case, the comic/film comparison, and I guess having 2 posters is taking fair-use for a ride as well. Please keep [[:Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]. There are also images in the commons of buses/billboards, maybe you can ditch the teaser poster for one of those, solves one problem I guess.Comitmanto 09:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 images? 

message: I removed the following from the Reactions section.  I reorganized it to read better, and the following review just sounded like it was off the back of the DVD box and it didn't really add anything to the article.  I also removed the list of ratings as it didn't really sit well in the section, and the formatting is kind of poor.  I don't think it's particularly suited to the article, but I am saving it here in case anyone can find a way to better incorporate it into the article. -- Renesis13 16:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions section 

message: I'm the person who photographed the movie-sets in Sydney.  Now that I've had a bandwidth upgrade to my website, I can link directly to the all the movie-set QTVRs on my site (at 4020 Superman Returns Panoramas).  Currently they are linked to a single image on the Panoramas (Denmark) VR portal.
So what's the consensus?  Keep the external link as it is, or change it to a direct link to their source, my site at 4020.net?
--Nemeng 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - movie set QTVRs 

message: I'm not entirely sure if the Rout/Bosworth/Spacey portrait images actually add antyhing to the production history.  And the plot is illustrated by two good images - one of the 777 and the other of Bosworth and Routh.  Who else agrees that all three images should be shuttled off into their respective articles? Hbdragon88 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good to get a picture of everyone, instead of just a single picture for each. Like Revenge of the Sith has. It wouldn't matter if their were crew members in the picture, but one picture that engrosses everyone involved (well, the most you can get in the group at least). Bignole 22:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images, once again 

message: I hope nobody minds if I added the movie's advertisement in the Monaco Grand Prix this year. Although I did read, or at least thought I read, that you guys had too many links to advertisements. I just thought that it was a notable inclusion in the article, as well as there being a free image ;-).--Skully Collins 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2006 Monaco Grand Prix]] Advertisements 

message: :I have a concern with the Box Office Results section.  The last comment about how much Alan Horn expected the film to make and then stating that it was less then he had expected by about 100 million is contradictory to itself.  This should be fixed as soon as possible. Manofthespoon 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office Results 

message: Hi everybody!
First of all, sorry for my English, I haven't had much practice in the last months...
An nice sugestion to short it up the article a little bit would be creating a separate article dedicated to its music. 
In pt.wikipedia, I did something similar, creating Música de Superman Returns (as you can imagine, "Superman Returns' music"), an article dedicated to the album soundtrack by John Ottman, to Sound of Superman (here, it got its own article, put there we though it would be better to concentrate everything just in one article) and to the music featured in the movie, but not included in the soundtrack. It cleaned up the article a bit and, in a proper article, the subject could be better developed.
What you guys think?
FlavioTerceiro 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman Returns' music 

message: What is the point of having two DVD covers in the article (let alone one)? Judging from above, several other images have been removed to fit in line with fair-use requirements, but surely DVD covers (two, which are not really that different from the poster) are not really that notable/important? Reelusa89 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really assume that we need either, but two is definitely too much. I know they are used to illustrate the differences in the two DVDs, but a lot of films have different images for the different versions. Bignole 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually if we want to acknowledge to the readers of the article that there are 2 DVD editions of the movie(one single disc issue and the other a two-disc set containing the bonus disc),then we definately should add both cover arts so the reader will understand the difference. Nadirali 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD covers

message: "Yup, you heard me correctly," an anonymous Warner executive assured us, Tuesday.  "Singer is out -- Raimi and Nolan are in.  Their proposed Returns sequel is stunning; richer and more interesting than the arcs Dougherty and Harris had been turning in.  All I'm going to say is that Warner has the rights to a few DC characters, not just Superman, and with the CW's plans for the Smallville episode 'Bruce' going forward, not to mention the nearly concurrent reboots of two founding comic book franchises, a 'mutual sequel' seems the most interesting option.  Watch IMDb: you can expect Big Blue to wind up right there with another big guy in the synopsis for 'Dark Knight'.  Not for a while yet... but trust me." --Hutchingson Oberth, AP Wire, Dec 22 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.153.128 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but until a NAMED Warner executive says that Bryan Singer is out, we should keep it that he's in. Unnamed sources are never reliable - it's pure rumor at this point. SkittlzAnKomboz 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolan & Raimi Weigh In -- and Warner's Reaction May Surprise You 

message: If someone doesn't so mind, I shall be rewriting the plot tomorrow unless anyone objects. As it is it just starts out of universe before going in, feeling incoherent. Wiki-newbie 15:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot needs a rewrite 

message: What's with this section?  I don't even need to play the "It's a movie" card on this one-- that isn't even a space shuttle.  The movie specifically describes it as being of a new design.  Not even a nitpicker could pick this nit, becuase there's no nit to pick.  It's not a space shuttle, the section should be removed.  Thoughts?  AltonBrownFTW 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to disagree. How else would one describe this vehicle? It can accurately be described as a shuttle. It's function is clearly to go into space. What else would you describe it as? Unless I'm mistaken "space shuttle" isn't a brand name. I doubt it's a registered trademark of Nasa, I'm pretty sure it's just a description of what the thing is. It's also a pretty accurate description of what the thing in Superman Returns is. I don't know what else you're going to call it, but since this issue for some reason seems to irritate you, I'll re-edit my re-edit of the plot with a more ambiguous description. I'll also look up "space shuttle" and get back to you with what the Wikipedia definition is of "space shuttle". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varengo71 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watched the film again last night. They clearly refer to the vehicle several times as a "space shuttle" or simply "the shuttle".Cris Varengo 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is obviously a shuttle and the film refers to the entire event as a "shuttle launch". AltonBrownFTW was right - no nit to pick whatsoever. --Bentonia School 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Mistakes?

message: There are two things missing in the article:
1)It mentions that the movie was never released in Bahrain,Kuwait or Qatar.What does this mean?From what I read,it clearly indicates that there never was a relase of the movie in those countries.If the article is trying to say that it never came out in theatres,that's different.But never released clearly means that there never was a theatrical nor DVD release.If there wasn't a release in either theatres nor home format,then I think the person who wrote that should correct or specify it.
2)There is hardly a mention of Jason White being Superman's son,which is probably the highlight of this film.Even if he isn't Superman's son,as many argue,at least we should mention the possibility as this is something totally new in the Superman movies. Nadirali 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't said in the film that he is, so saying that he is would be original research. The plot states the facts: Jason throws a piano, Luthor asks who his father is, and Superman recites the same passage his father did to him to Jason. Bignole 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nadirali still has a good point that the mention isn't prominent enough.  Can we find a way to discuss this more without it being OR? (Like what critics have said, or sites discussing the trilogyseries, or quotes from the writers/producers/directors?)-- Renesis (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it isn't a true trilogy, but I'm not sure what else can be said. The point is that they don't actually say he is Supe's son. We have the piano (which is rather obvious) and then we have tons of ambiguous stuff before and after that tries to hide it again. The real problem lies in the fact that we don't want to point to lots of tiny details in the film that suggest it one way or the other, because the plot will start to grow again. I think that if you can get a quote from Singer saying that "Jason is Superman's son", than we can literally just put that in the plot and add the citation after it. This way no one can say one thing about it, because we'll have a quote from Singer saying so. Bignole 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to say trilogy, sorry :)  What I am saying is that even though we don't know that is the case, there are many more people besides Wikipedia editors out there who think it is the case.  We could discuss these speculations if we can find third-party sources that talk about it.  There have to be some, right? -- Renesis (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a critic says, "Jason is Superman's son", he's just using an educated guess. I could have sworn though that I remember Singer talking about Jason, and "how much fun" they are going to have with him in the next film. The problem lies in that it isn't an "opinionated" subject, like a review would be, but a black and white subject whose answer lies with the writers and director. I know that there are tons of people out there that believe he is, and ones that believe he isn't, but it's a lot of conjecture. Any third party would have to be a party that either wrote or directed it, because they are the ones who actually know the truth. I mean, if we say "Jason is Superman's son," and then in the sequel Singer "explains" everything that happened in a manner that says Jason is really Richard's son and it was all a coincedence, than we allowed original research to act like fact. Granted, this could still happen even if Singer says he is Supe's son, but we'd still have him on record saying that it was and later we could acknowledge a "retcon" on his part in that area. Bignole 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you are talking about stating it as a fact.  If a critic actually said "Jason is Superman's son", then we can definitely say that there has been speculation that Jason is Superman's son with that source as a reference.  I'm not saying we state it as fact, just that many people think this to be the case (or whatever we can back up with evidence). -- Renesis (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need to gauge actually acceptance of the idea, we merely need to know whether it exists.  We do know that discussion of the idea exists, we just need to find evidence of it. Not everything critics or reviewers say is limited to the reception section. -- Renesis (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do it that way, then I'm forseeing A LOT of citations tacked on to the end of it so that we can prove it is a discussion that doesn't ONLY exist in fan forums. If we can do that, ok. Bignole 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I gather, the novel almost explicitly states that Richard is the father, and the "piano incident" never took place. Lois killed Brutus by dropping a bookshelf on his head. Just saying "Jason might be Superman's son", without citation, would be original research, because you are interpreting events in the film. It's introducing speculation without proof. Watching the film, anyone can draw any number of conclusions. Proving a script is the actual script would be hard enough. Direct quotes from people is the best way to cite information. Ok, a good example would be A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. This film drew criticism (from fans) about some apparent homoerotic themes throughout the film. Just saying "fans thought..." would not suffice, but if you read the article you'll see that the issue was discussed with the Director. This makes it reliable information, and notable information, because even the Director, who states that it wasn't his intention, admits that it is there now that he looks at it. It went from fan speculation to a speculation concurred by the Director. This is why I say "find quotes from Singer" to help substantiate the claims, otherwise they are merely "speculation", and anyone can speculate anything they want and that doesn't mean we should include it. Bignole 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  specifications and highlight worth mentioning 

message: Shouldn't there be something, anywhere in this article, about the recurring comparatory images between Superman and Jesus? 24.165.122.145 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perceived connections between Kal-El and Jesus (among other religious figures--I've seen him compared to Moses almost as often) are inherent in most of the Superman mythos, not just this film, and is covered in the main Superman article and in Cultural influences on Superman. -- Pennyforth 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see the new tag I added to the "Reeve references" as it applies to this situation as well. Without direct input from the writer or director, or a reliable source making note of these "allusions" then it's considered original research.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ images 

message: I've started a section (within the spoiler tags) indicating specific and confirmed references to the Reeve films. Are there any that I missed? 23skidoo 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to the Reeve films

message: This has probably already been stated, but I've noticed the end of the summary is not the end of the movie.  Since we have the "spoiler" warning up, shouldn't the end of the movie be written in?  I was specifically thinking of the scene where Clark returns to Lois' son as it was not clear in the movie whether Clark was giving to the son more powers, or whether he was claiming the boy to be his own.  I looked here for clarification, but couldn't find it in the article.  ~Gatorgirl623~ 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it isn't clear in the film. Wikipedia doesn't make assumptions, er..it shouldn't, as that would be considered original research. It states in the plot that he returns and recites a speech that Jor-El recited to him. Other than that we can't insert something that might be or might not be.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Plot Summary 

message: The Complete Score listing is missing a track... there should be a source cue titled "Martha's Radio" listed after "Dying Wish Part II". The track was composed for the film by Damon Intrabartolo (who also conducted the scoring sessions) and was performed by George Doering. John Ottman briefly mentions the recording session for this piece on his website, and it's also noted in an online article at SoundtrackNet. In addition, there's also an unused alternate take for "The Daily Planet" (eventually used as the background music for the menu on disc 2 of the DVD release), also mentioned on Ottman's site. Both of these cues are unofficially available, as is the rest of the score, but virtually all of the unofficial versions of the complete score that are floating around the internet don't include these two cues.
71.107.195.48 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something else I just noticed and forgot to add earlier is that the track "Reprise" (on Disc 2) is also in the wrong position on the list. Instead of being listed before "Fly Away", it should actually come after "End Credits", as it's the second half of the end credits music. (For anyone keeping score, in the film, the end credits finish with a replay of "Little Secrets" from Disc 1.) 71.107.195.48 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Soundtrack/Complete Score... 

message: Why did this movie get bad reviews? I found it was better than most movies today.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Reviews 

message: There is an attempt to delete images on this article by an editor. I believe although he may believe himself to be correct the images that are being deleted are of more importance to the article than any of the other images. We do not need the behind the scenes image or the image of Marlen Brando. However none of the images need to be deleted as these are minimal use and within the amount used on GA articles. Lets attempt to remain civil if at all possible. Disagreement is not in itself uncivil but some of the edit summeries defenitly have been.--Amadscientist 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Superman in the poster, Superman and Lois, and Brandon Routh in his Superman gear "behind the scenes", there is no reason for another Superman picture just to show him flying. It's unnecessay eye candy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One Superman image is the poster, you want me to delete that? One Superman image is a behind the scene image showing the green-screen usage in the movie (one that has real world context it is illustrating) you want me to delete that? But the two you do not want me to delete are the two images you uploaded. WP:FU criteria number 3(a) states: Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - Since the poster shows him flying, we don't need to see it again in the plot. FU criteria #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. The image does not do that, because it's just a picture of him flying, which again is already shown in the poster anyhow. On that same page, in "Acceptable Images", it states: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Again, there is no critical commentary on his flying.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is my argumant to keep those two images or two that are similer. The fact that I uploaded them has nothing to do with my reasoning. The two images replaced two other lesser quality images. One that showed a computer image that was not the best quality and the other of Lois and Superman for the same reason.
Forget about the poster. Items in the infobox are going to be doubled. It is there for at a glance reference. The first image shows Superman flying in the classic "Fists forward " stance and shows the character as he is most thought of. The second image of Lois and Superman is important as you cannot have an article about Superman without mentioning Lois Lane. Therefore for plot, they are crucial.
The other images sre not needed and add no true context to the article. An image of the production art would be more appropriate. Showing the actors in the production section makes no sense. Although it does show the director it is less important than the two images in the plot section.
I always use the GA rated articles from other movies as examples of how an article should be done. That is encouraged to keep all related article in the same format. It goes not break fair use policy. Many FA and GA articles have far more images than this article.--Amadscientist 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Halloween is FA, only 1 image in the plot. The Boondock Saints - one image in the plot. Halloween III, Gremlins II...there are pages with 2 images in the plot and pages with 1 image in the plot. What another article does does not translate to what every article should do. What you deem as "classic 'fists forward'" is irrelevant to the article as a whole. First, there is no source for that "classic" characterization. Secondly, you are not talking about that image (which is part of the critical commentary requirement that I pointed to). The same goes for Lois and Superman. There is no critical commenatary for the reason you are saying the image needs to be there. You cannot say "this is here because," and never say that in the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the images are important, because nothing there says "you need me to illustrate a point". You are wanting an image of Superman simply because the movie is about him, ok. You are wanting an image of Lois and Superman to show their romantic interest..ok. One of those kills two birds with one stone. The image of him flying in the "classic pose" is original research unless you can verify that it is "classic" and that it has relevance in the plot section. Otherwise, it's an extraneous image of Superman.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article could also stand to lose the Lois & Clark picture.  I don't see that it satisfies WP:NFCC #8. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying "Superman flies to the plane" is not discussing the image. I could find a dozen images that show the same thing. We don't need visualization help to understand what flying is. A plot is not "required" by any means, but accepted as part of the idea that it provides context for all the real world information. If an image in the plot is used, then it needs to provide a reason for why it is important enough to be shown in the plot (all non-free images have to show that, regardless of location).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First plot section is needed in all articles about films. Just continuing to say it isn't doesn't make it true but does raise some questions as to which style guide line you are giving emphasis to. As far as the quote under the image that was replaced I never liked that either. It had no true relevance as the image was computer generated and there was no mention of that. But you are picking and choosing what you except and what you delete. The image in production has no reference at all in that section yet you feel strongly that it should stay. No it really should go, using your logic. No reference in the article, no reason for it to remain. Anyway lets clear up all this crap. I will say that I use the Project Film Style Guidlines and feel that it should be the syle used for the article.--Amadscientist 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No style guideline, policy (WP:PLOT). If you want to challenge other images, fine, remove them all until more applicable ones can be found, but I'm saying that the two in the plot (in the least, one of them) do not meet WP:FU criteria. The Film Style Guideline (WP:MOSFILMS for anyone looking for it) only talks about posters, not about images in the plot. You want a guideline on images, WP:FU is your place to go.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A film is a published work, as WP:PLOT, is the basis behind the plot section in WP:MOSFILMS, as writing every little detail would be "indiscriminate information." Regardless, this discussion is about images, not the plot itself, which could use a bit of trimming anyway. The point was that nothing says "there has to be a plot," it's simply accepted that one would be present in a film article. But, one could write an entire film article that has no plot, but simply mentions the events of the plot as they pertain to the real world content (like discussing events that occur in the film, based on the writer's intentions that might be discussed in a "Writing" section). It isn't mandatory, but it's certainly easier to do, and read, if you are like some readers and simply come here to read about what happened in the film (which shouldn't be done in the first place, but you can't stop 'em from doing it).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It says on WP:FU, clearly, that all screenshots must have critical commentary, simple as that. You are picking two criteria from the 10 (which all 10 must be satisfied). Critical commentary (which is part of the "Sigificance" criteria) is established through reliable sources that discuss the scene the image is detailing. This does not equate to "Superman saves Lois from drowning" being in the plot, and thus we show an iamge of Superman saving Lois from drowning. That isn't critical commentary. If none of the images meet WP:FU, then they all should go. No reason to play favorites here. P.S. The Film style guideline says nothing about "you must have a plot section". You misunderstand mentioning for mandation. What the guideline does is explain how you should write a plot section. As for WP:PLOT, last time I checked, Superman Returns was a fictional story, so were all the films that are made about fictional topics. "Fiction" is not limited to books. Anyway, there is no point to debate the semantics of what PLOT and MOSFILM are saying, as it's off topic. You see it one way, I see it another. I have not said that we should remove plot sections, I merely suggested that they were not mandated (which they are not), just merely accepted practice.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "standard" =/= "mandatory". It means usually performed. Cast sections are standard as well, but again, not mandatory. Anyway, no reason to perpetuate an argument that is going nowhere, since I'm not saying the section should be removed (and wouldn't request one to be removed). The point of the critical commentary was exactly what I stated many times before, that unless there is some type of critical commentary for that non-free image, then it violates WP:FU, as non-free images must meet all 10 criteria on that page, not just a select few. The two things you pointed are subjective criteria, yes, and they vary from article to article, but if an article has no images on it whatsoever, you wouldn't just grab anyones you can find, they would still have to meet all the criteria.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get what your saying now about the critical commentary as a part of the 10 criteria for fair use but I think I still don't understand your definition of critical commentary. As for cast sections they are standard as prose not as lists although it is permited if written in a way standardized in the project guidelines. I think what is clear is that you are very critical. That isn't a bad thing. Sometimes a critical eye is needed and the discussion helps better the article. You feel the "Argument " is going nowhere. I think the discussion was needed (as does Wiki). But it may well have played out as far as it can so with that.....--Amadscientist 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Critical commentary for a non-free image would be commentary that discusses that scene, or that technique (if the image is illustrating a cinematography technique). The commentary is typically real world content. For instance, see the caption in the image here. The capture serves the purpose of identifying the significance of the image, which is to illustrate a visual effects technique used on the show (which is detailed even further in the text that it is adjacent to). For Marlon Brando, pretty much all that text describes the significance of the image--though I agree that one that actually shows the computer-generated model of them mapping Brando's face from the previous film would be more appropriate. If it's an image in the plot, you may find that some review(s) have discussed some kind of sexual tension, or unrequited love, between Lois and Superman in the scene on the rooftop. That provides the context necessary to justify the use of that particular copyrighted image. You may find some reasons other than the two I just mentioned, to include the Lois/Supe image. Also, when I said "the argument is going nowhere," I was referring to the side-chatter we were having about whether a plot is mandatory or simply common practice. It was going nowhere because we were both debating the semantices of what a policy and a guideline were stating, and it had nothing to do with the discussion in this section, which was about the images of this article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew Van De Kamp is an FA article, but I wouldn't suggest an editor to use that as an example of writing about a fictional television character. Just because other articles are doing it wrong, and it was allowed, doesn't mean we should perpetuate the problem. WP:FU is clear about needing critical commentary, and saying "This is John Doe" isn't critical, it's stating the obvious and we don't need an image for that. Otherwise, we get into a "well, why doesn't so-n-so have an image in the article." The next thing you know, we have this on our hands.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images