Talk:DC animated universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DC animated universe article.
Edit criteria for the DC animated universe article:
A number of disputes as to the canon of certain DC comics-related animated series have surfaced in the DC animated universe article. A series (and/or its animated movie counterpart) shall not be included in the article unless it meets most of the following criteria:
  • 1) The series in question has at least one crossover episode with a known DCAU series. Static Shock, for example, wasn't considered canon until its first Batman crossover episode.
  • 2) The project at hand must heavily involve either Bruce Timm or Paul Dini, the fathers of the DCAU (not including spin-off films from a DCAU series).
  • 3) The series doesn't directly contradict established DCAU continuity. The Batman, for example, directly conflicts with Batman: The Animated Series', so it cannot be considered canon.
  • 4) The series utilizes the same animation style as the rest of the DCAU series. Teen Titans uses a radically different animation style from Justice League, for example.
  • 5) The series must use the same voice actors that were used in the various DCAU shows. For example, if Batman appears, he must be voiced by Kevin Conroy.
  • 6) A series/film/comic/etc. must be released before it can be added to the article. Speculation on whether an upcoming project is canon or not is not a verifiable fact, unless verifiable sources exist stating prior to release that it is in fact canon.
Additional notes for DC animated universe editing:
The following notes have been condensed from previously discussed topics:
  • Most DCAU comic series can be considered as canon, as long as they do not expressly contradict a televised episode. In many cases the stories actually expand upon events show in the various animated series and films. However, not every story in every issue can be canonical - some are expressly out of canon - and very few (excluding mini-series and annuals) have actually been confirmed as in-continuity.
  • The Teen Titans animated series is not in the DCAU continuity despite minor allusions to the broader DC comics and DC animated universes, and as such, will not be added to the article.
  • Superman: Brainiac Attacks is not currently considered DCAU canon despite many points that suggest it could be. Until solid staff confirmation as to its place in canon is released, it will not be added to the article.
  • The Legion of Super Heroes animated series may be annexed into the DCAU in the future, but as of right now it's not considered canon (See here for details).
  • It has been confirmed by Bruce Timm in a previous interview that the DCAU does not age in real time, which in turn makes the so-called Tim Drake/Batman Beyond timing paradox moot.

Contents

[edit] Other Series

I'm thinking the whole section called "Other series" needs an overhaul. Right now, it states: "Shows that are considered to be separate from the main universe but could possibly be part of it are:" My points: 1) If Beyond is part, I think that makes Zeta a part as well. You get one, you get the other. 2)Additionally, I think all the crossovers (however badly done) with Static also prove (however much I want to deny it) that Static is also a part of the DCAU. 3) Does anyone still really believe that Teen Titans is in the Timmverse? I know it's animated DC, but it's so radically different in story and style I don't think there's a debate, it seems totally seperate to me. It seems like Timm or Murakami has said something to that effect too. 4) Does anyone really debate if Krypto is part of the DCAU cannon? Anyone old enough to wonder probably doesn't care. Conclusion - I think that Zeta and Static should be referred to as officially part of the DCAU. For better for worse, they're in. Personally, I think TT is out, but I can at least see some debate there (that one stupid reference Batman made to the Titans in Static.) I think we should trim the "controversial" list to Kryto and TT. Objections? --Gillespee

I agree that *should* be done, but I've seen places where they do not consider SS part of continuity, and most people don't remember Zeta at all, so we shouldn't put them in continuity and risk an edit war. Not likely to happen, though. KramarDanIkabu 17:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If they deny Static or forgot Zeta, I say too bad for them. But for the sake of compromise, how about we list them as disputed or sub-series'? [User:SAMAS|SAMAS]] 12:17 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea.--Gillespee 05:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wait wat?

I regret I haven't been watching this article closely enough. Somehow Static Shock and The Zeta Project were melded into being regular shows of continuity even though this could be untrue. When did this happen? KramarDanIkabu (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Dwayne McDuffie has repeatedly stated on his official board that all the shows listed are officially part of continuity, whether the fanboys like it or not. Bruce Timm has also said the same on Toon Zone's DC Animation Board- there is no dispute. The shows clearly take place in the same universe and to claim otherwise would just be childish. Having a dislike for Static or Zeta does not give one the right to remove it from canon - that's up to the producers, and they're rightfully proud of their ever-growing universe just the way it us. I for one am a big fan of The Zeta Project and see it as one of the high points of the DCAU. I also greatly enjoy the Static episodes that cross over with TNBA, STAS, JL and BB... No other show in the the history of television has crossed over with so many other shows. I hope we can end this debate now and continue to co-operate in expanding the DCAU entries on Wikipedia. Cowmuf 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're not calling me a fanboy. I'm just as much a fan of those two shows as anyone. If you can point me to some sources, however, I think the article will have much more credibility. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aquaman Embargo???

This section is an insult to the English language. Maybe if it was cleaned up to make sense, it'd be alright.

Both sections need to be whittled down and cleaned up drastically to remove POV and provide sources. While the Bat-Embargo has been confirmed by the production team, the so-called "Aqua-Embargo" doesn't seem to have been; if it has, please provide a source, otherwise it's speculative and OR. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I just overhauled the embargo sections. If the person who recently expanded it feels that I deleted any crucial info, let me know on this talk page. I thought about deleting the Aqua-Embargo section altogether, since I can only find one or two websites that mention it, but it stays for now. Pitr 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Overall, I like what you've done. I'm glad you left in what you did, and I think the parts you took out were a little too much information.--Gillespee 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
SORRY, ENGLISH IS MY SECOND LANGUAJE :P , HAHA. THAT'S WHY I USED <! -- SIGNG -- > ON IT. NEVERTHELESS I NOTICED YOU REMOVED SOME VALID POINTS, CAN YOU EXPLAINME THE MEANING OF POV. I DON'T GET THE CONCEPT FROM ITS ARTICLE HERE IN THE WIKIPEDIA, SO I NEED A MORE CASUAL EXPLANATION. IS IT LIKE BAD PUBLICITY OR SOMETHING??

Also there IS an aqua embargo, that's why the character disappeared and Black manta was renamed devil ray. and there is not going to be an aquaman movie, it is a silly parody on some HBO show. I don't appreciate you undoing my work, it seems you have a lot to research to do if you don't think what i said is true. Im going to post some stuff you erased, and some stuff you wrote here so we can improve the article. Keep in mind that the idea to prvide as much verifiable and well writen information as posible.


this are facts:

  • But instead his role was later taken by a non-credited character believed to be Dr. Moon, a brain surgeon who first appeared as a Ra's Al Ghul minion in the seventies, and has becomed the go-to villain of the DC universe when 'evil' brain-washing is required. His identity reamins unconfirmed, since his weight and ethnicity has varied every time he appeared on comics, from a fit black man, to an hunchbacked fat arabic man; but it is very probbably to be him, since the characters signature feature are his glasses and him being foreign, and the character has gained a lot of popularity since his apparition on Identity Crisis(it took me a lot of research to now this, mr. i'm so perfect and i own this page)
  • Or by, just the way Alan Moore got away with using the Fu Manchu character for the League of Extraordinare Genttlemen by not writing down his name during the whole saga; just using those characters without mentionig their names. (this is useful knoldge, since that was clever of Moore and its extremely related information)
  • ...seing major Bat-villains such as the ever-favorite Mark Hamil's Joker (this is important since, the other joker is hated by most critics)
  • It could also happen if The Batman gets canceled before Justice League Unlimited. Its known tha some people hope so. (and the series is in crisis now, since it is going to be evaluated as soon as it airs its 52nd episode)

--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your sources as to where Timm has acknowledged the "Aqua-Embargo". This needs to be verifiable. The rest of the stuff is your own supposition and opinion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
yeah, right: they stop liking the character! as if, lol! the same rules aply for all characters appearing in other media!! Are you really a fan? i don't think you are familiarized enough.--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to prove anything. What I'm asking for is verifiability. Where is this information coming from? If you don't have any sources, then it's your own opinion, as I said. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
maybe i'm gonna put a section ==== ==== inside called "bat-embargo implications" with a list of ponts like the ones you say that have no sourses, but you can prove by watching the show. why don't you prove that is false?--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The series is Entourage, yo said there is going to be an aquaman movie, that false. you don't nkow about the topic. you are wasting my time you shold be doing this investigations yourself if you wan't to erase my info. you are the one that cares about the sources--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nope, it's not for us to do the investigations to prove you false. It's for you to provide the sources that will verify your assertions. If you'd provided this link earlier, a lot of this could have been avoided.
Secondly, I would not suggest a Bat-Embargo Implications section because that again is your own opinion and Wikipedia is not your own personal fan site. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dwayne McDuffie on Devil Ray #1: “You call it [‘political correctness’], in my day we called it ‘manners’ but, either way, it’s moot. We changed Black Manta to Devil Ray [who, in the comics, is African-American] and [we] removed Aquaman from this script because the rights to Aquaman were no longer available (courtesy of Television Without Pity).”

So, what are you going to make me keep doing your homework? or can i just undo your changes?

Nope, if you erase, you prove the info is wrong; if you want sources you can search it yourself, and i can go on and on and you are never gonig to be right. Because its pretty obvious to me you don't know anything about the topic. It's only your uninformed opinion that those facts are myopinions. if you watch the show you cand see that the characters stopped appearing when i said they stopped appearing--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) And also Krypto IS based on what goes on DCAU, but not vice versa.--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'm saying, in the most polite way I can, that is now how things work here. If you think I am wrong, you can always ask for a opinion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

you are also impolite, and that's since you erased all my work without askin as y said on the message < - >you can "correct" but do it point by point. don't erase the new format. i've already proved you are wrong and don't know about the topic, don't write about it if you don't have the info. that's why i don't go correct the people who write articles about the side effects of chemo-therapy: BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW .. ABOUT ITHE TOPIC!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And you shouldn't blind revert since you retained all the spelling errors I tried to correct. I have attempted to integrate your information as neatly and concisely as possible, without all the speculation and opinion. There's no need to split up the section like that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable attitude, as I am confident you will see when other editors get into this. Someone else take this, because I don't have the time to deal with T-Man for the moment. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Agreed, for the one that takes the case (i'd like some colaboration).khaosworks erased my contrybutions without asking me (as i politely asked beforehand), or even researching about the topic, so i vas dealing with somebody with probably better writing skills than me but that did't know about the topic.

A slight misrepresentation. I corrected the spelling, cleaned up the layout, but every one of his contributions that was actually verifiable and not down to simple opinion or too obvious as to not require saying was actually retained. Just compare the two versions side by side. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nope, no such thing as a A slight misrepresentation. khaosworks, who keeps saying that my informations are opinions without investigating them, also put some opinionated afirmations as the ones i'm moving here:

ok, this info you wrote is false and anyone can check their sources to verify:

  • ...members. However, there has been no official acknowledgement of any such embargo by DC or Bruce Timm. (of course there is, do you even wacth the series! i recomend you don't edit an article if you're not an expert! read the interviews, please!)
  • ...possibly due to an Aquaman character appearing on Smallville (TV series) and a possible feature film featuring the hero. (it´s a series about an actor playng the lead on an aquaman movie)
  • ..."Devil Ray," a member of the Legion of Doom who appears to be indentical to Aquaman's nemesis Black Manta in all respects except his name...(he is, thats official)
  • ...believed by some to be Dr. Moon, an obscure DC villain fron the 1970's. (he is becoming popular, read Identity crisis)
  • ...Furthermore, although the League of Assassins has been shown to be part of the DCAU, Ra's Al Ghul is absent. (they are both absent, and what about the other villains. what? i can only mention the ones you like?? i don care for red claw, can I erase her?)

--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because something is obvious to you as you watch the series does not make it "official," so please stop trumping the point of "you can see it if you watch." That constitutes original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. We're more like reporters than analysts. That being said, just provide us with the link to the Dwayne McDuffie quote, khaos isn't asking too much of you at all.--Gillespee 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah, no...wait, no. I´m more like: WHOOOOO!! hold your horses there, you are not "we" or "us". nice try though. you're as much part and as profetional as the rest of us, pal. Besides you don't even have a user page. And i repeat myself, you won't ever see me writing about medicines, because i'm not a doctor. If you need me to specify that most of my observations come from "The Doomsday Sanction" and "question Authority", it means that you don't watch the show. If you are not a fan what are you doing here? i'm providing rough info, which is steel info, especially because as i said, it's verifiable, if you care so much about the sources, there are two polite ways: a. asking me nicely here. b. doing your homework and reasearching yourself. Erasing the info just because your highness 'dunno 'bout no embargo' is just not polite and is a cry for anger and rudeness ifthe person is as me easily irritated by people with authoritary attitude. You are maybe i should put my sources before writing info, although i don't mind, i'd be helpful for those who would like to know about the topic, altho if the person is really interested he´d probably research the official sources for himself. On the other had, khaosworks also commit a big mistake: one should provide the proof before erasing something. you can't go on to every article erasing what ever info that doesn't have quoted sources. There is history pages the author is just going to undo you changes. If you care so much, you should help the way i sugested or by something different you could come up with, but with the info provider, not against him especially if you don't know abut the info. I can get how come sombody has the guts to write here without knowing sources like the dwayne page or the watchtower or even not knowing what happens in wich episode. It makes me so angry!!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I really think everyone here should just relax and maybe let this whole thing go before it goes any further. It looks to me like the issue is more or less settled, which means this argument here no longer serves any purpose except to raise tempers. Pitr 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
hahahaha i thing someone made the batembargo bigger, someone copy pasted more paragraphs f that from the page i crated so people stop whining about it here, where due to te fact that the topic is so current, makes it very big, important and totally worth of having it just here, with out having to be an introductory link... you can go summarize it, it's ok, but remember go les than 2 paragraphs and erase the hot names and you well met me again. and you know it, i could be worst than a headacke. And also remember this article can go 60k with sections of no more than 25k and is ok, avoid to much prose with no liks lists or eye catching elements, is the way to go. what wikipedia tries to avoid is tiresome articles, not space. if wikipedia would encourage to avoid ocupying memory space, it wouldn encourage so much article spawning.Again: this is still a small article, people--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 10:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point here as well as at the JLU page, but the 4 paragraphs of info on the Bat-Embargo is literally 1/3 of the Bat-Embargo article. There really is no need for the repetition. I move we shorten it while of course linking to the Bat-Embargo page.--Gillespee 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We met again

And we met again. hahahah, somebody took what I developed as a full article here again. I don't like the idea, but...What's about to do?--T for Trouble-maker 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I wrote this

During Batman Adventures, the last comic book based on Batman: the Animated Series, all the rouges evolved. The Penguin became major, Black mask and Red Hood made their first appearances and Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Talia and the Riddler had also major changes in their lives. Although the comics based on the DCAU stories are not canonical to it, the producers have often adapted some of the plots to the actual DCAU in the past. It remains to be seen if the Batman Adventure story arc will have any effect on the JLU.

I creted this last paragraph, I hope you like it, my main point is "whatever is going to happen with the Batman Adventures stuff". Since English is not my first language it probably need some copiedit.--T for Trouble-maker 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] moot

People is abusing this word. It is rude and, in most cases I've seen here, they exaggerate. I don't care about the comment Ace erased, but the crossover with the titans thing, if it was truly quoting Bruce Timm, was not moot just because the series is going to be over. First because the Teen Titans isn't only the cartoon and the universe it created, but a whole franchise; JLU producers might as well take the characters straight from comics without caring for the cartoon version. Second because JLU has had crossovers with canceled series before, just as other DCAU series did. And third, because the ending in fact, makes the crossover more possible, nw that the rights are available. So people please, think twice before calling another editors words "moot". --T for Tool and Trouble-maker 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman: Brainiac Attacks

Apostrophe deleted my entry on Superman: Brainiac Attacks. his claim is that it only uses the style and not the continuity of the DC animated universe. I've checked the story description in the press and nothing is (so far) mentioned that it isn't set in the same universe. Does he know something we don't? --Destron Commander 10:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I have read that elsewhere. Karkull says style on his weblog too on the JLU Watchtower site. I have a feeling that it has something to do with Daly coming back too, but I dunno. [1]--Gillespee 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Even the Watchtower site does not mention anything about continuity. It does not confirm nor deny. Either Brainiac Attacks pulled a Superman Returns/Godzilla on us or the story takes place after the current season of JLU. --Destron Commander 03:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, when Karkull specifically says "style" when talking about it, I get the idea that continuity is not in cards. I suppose it's open to interpretation, but that's good enough for me.--Gillespee 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen (Images, trailer, voice acting credits, etc)...then yes, Brainiac Attacks IS going to be in-continuity. The feel of the film suggests that it takes place before JL began (Some time during or after Superman: TAS). Oh, and Mercy, Lex Luthor's assistant... is in it as well, and in her pre-JL uniform. That coupled with the fact that she betrayed Lex in JL puts this in pre-JL/U continuity. Seriously though, look at this image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Brainiac_attacks.jpg that's clearly DCAU Superman in every possible way. --Venomaru 09:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Voice actors can hardly be evidence - they brought back Daly but dropped Clancy Brown and Corey Burton (Brainiac sounds VERY different.) As for continuity or not, I don't think we'll know until the DTV comes out.--163.6.254.140 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but remember, this isn't the first time VAs have been re-cast for a DTV (Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman comes to mind specifically). The real question is why would anyone think it WASN'T in continuity? They wouldn't use the Superman: TAS character designs, and as well as Lois and Supes original VAs (As you said though, it's not hardly evidence, but it is a point of interest)...if they didn't mean it it to be canon in the DCAU.

I've always looked at it like this: Each era of the DCAU gets it's own DTV. There was one for B:TAS, one for the Batman & Robin era, one for the TNBA era, and one for the Batman Beyond era. I've always naturally expected a Superman DCAU-continuity DTV to be in the works, just as I do with JL, and possibly JLU as well. Sure it took years, but then again so did Batman & Mr.Freeze: SubZero.

Oh, on a side note, Brainiac sounding totally different can be chalked up to thevarious aspects of Brainiac. In the comics there was more than one Brainiac "personality", remember. One example would be Brainiac 5 in the Legion of Superheroes circa JLU. His voice was also VERY different from the Brainiac we've come to know. --Venomaru 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The new review of Brainiac Attacks at World's Finest by Jim Harvey features a paraphrased comment from Duane Capizzi, the writer of the film. Presumably, this comment is from an upcoming interview with Capizzi that WF will be posting soon: Post #132 in this thread - http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=167265&page=7

Harvey's review says this:

Before I address the movie itself, I want to quickly touch upon “wacky Lex.” He’s modeled after the Richard Donner version of Lex Luthor, from the Superman live-action features. Writer Duane Capizzi even says so. He says that while the movie has the look of the Bruce Timm animated series, it’s a stand alone movie that can be considered out of continuity, and draws influences from many different aspects of the Superman lore. Does that excuse the final product? No. But for those hardcore Timm-fans looking for an excuse to ignore this movie, there it is.

I think that closes the issue about whether this film is or is not continuity. Generally speaking, it is not in continuity. It can probably be counted amongst the Krypto/Titans section; things that can possibly be associated but mostly aren't.

[edit] Batman Beyond

It is my understanding that Batman Beyond is only meant to be one possible future of the DCAU but the JLU creative staff sure does a good job of keeping the continuity consistent, no? --Destron Commander 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

After two cross-overs in JLU plus the one in Static (bleh, but it's still there) you still think it's a possible future? I don't know how much more "in continuity" something can get?  :) Honestly though, is anyone aware of any creator comments either way? I'm not. I've always assumed it is, but I guess assumptions certainly can be wrong.--Gillespee 04:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The constant references as well as various crossover episodes are meant to put an end to the discussion of Batman Beyond and the Zeta Project being the true future of the DCAU, basically...yes, it IS the true future. If you have a problem with it, what does it really matter? As JL/U proves the characters you know and love from the DCAU have countless more adventures in the time between now and the Batman Beyond future. --Venomaru 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity in the DCAU Comic Books

Does anyone have a specific quote from Timm declaring all DCAU comics out of continuity? From what I've read, only The Batman Adventures #25 and the Adventures in the DC Universe series are out of coninuity. The Deadman episode of JLU also referenced his origin from the Batman: Gotham Adventures series.

While it's true many of them fit into continuity, it's also true that many other don't. Take Huntress's origin in one of the Batman DCAU-related comics (circa The Batman & Robin Adventures #19). Said origin completely conflicts with the origin presented in JLU. I tend to look at the comics as more..."continuity optional", if YOU like them, and they still fit into continuity, then by all means consider them so. But I doubt we'll ever see a writer/producer/etc from the various DCAU shows tell us that selective issues are 100% in-continuity. --Venomaru 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aging in Real Time

According to one of Timm's post as wf.toonzone.net, the DCAU doesn't age in real time, easily making it possible for Tim Drake to still be a boy in BB: Return of the Joker.

[edit] Uniform DC Animated Universe

While going through the various DCAU show pages I noticed that they're all quite different. So my idew is this...perhaps it's time to give the DCAU-related pages a more uniform look. Have each of them sectioned in the same similar fashion. Some of the pages (like The Zeta Project) seem thrown together, while others (like Justice League Unlimited) are neat and tidy. Obviously this comes from people having more love for one, than for the other. However, since they are all a part of the same amazing continuity, perhaps it's time the pages reflected that. --Venomaru 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

I'm deleting most of the "Inconsistencies" section, it's rather pointless to talk about said continuity inconsistencies when most of them have since been cleared up by the writers, and retro-active continuity. --Venomaru 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Titans - Ages

I'm returning to ages section of that topic to its' previous state, because the edited version, while thurough, is quite long winded. It makes that paragraph absolutely monstrous.

Also, it was implied in the previous version that the timeframe for Teen Titans could only take place before Batman: TAS, where-as the newer version stretches out that part of the topic waaaaaay too much. Dick would have been about 12-ish when Bruce took him in (judging by what was shown in Batman: TAS), so that allows a timeframe of atleast 6 years before he heads off to college. Atleast a couple of those years we can assume went towards his training (as Robin was already trained before Teen Titans), and another couple of those years can go towards Robin making a name for himself alongside Batman, as Beast Boy is obviously aware of him in the Teen Titans origin episode (circa the latest season). Obviously he was homeschooled at the Wayne Manor prior to going off to college, so it's not a stretch to think he continued his homeschooling via correspondence classes at Titans Tower. Long story short, in the end we end up with 2 - 3 years gap in which he could have been with the Teen Titans.

Next off... we shouldn't assume that it was a falling out which caused him to go to go off to Jump City (home of the Teen Titans), for all we know Batman sent him there to gain some outside Gotham life experience. Because we all know Bruce had plenty of outside experience before becoming Batman, so it's very possible he wanted the same for Dick. Or any number of other reasons. Of course, both theories are just that, theories, and are speculation at their core. It's also not a stretch to see Dick/Robin have trouble with Gotham villains after fighting aliens and demons, and so on. Batman fights fantastical threats alongside the Justice League all the time, and yet he still goes back to Gotham City and has trouble with his villains roster now and again.

And finally, because of the super-deformed animation style of Teen Titans, it's very possible that "Kid Flash" was already an adult. There's no proof that he wasn't already 18 (or slightly older), in reality 18 year olds can look years older than they are, or incredibly young. It's impossible to tell his true age due to once again...the animation style. So it's not hard to believe that both the JL Flash origin flashback and the Kid Flash in Teen Titans could co-exist. For all we know he got his powers, and then decided to become Kid Flash. The existence of Kid Flash in both shows means that there was atleast one Flash prior to Kid Flash. Afterall, if there was no other hero called Flash, Wally would have taken that name right away. --Venomaru 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The part about the theory being supported because of the two year period that Dick gave up being Robin is flat out wrong, though, as Robin had already graduated college at that point. That, at the very least, needs to be changed in some way. Additionally, as the article is now, it is omitting several of the conflicts with Teen Titans fitting purely because they theoretically can be explained away. If this article is to remain impartial, all the facts should be presented, regardless of any fan theory or conjecture.-- 09:43, 12 April 2006 (EST)

The point about the impartiality is true enough. Although I would prefer to keep the topic paragraphs thin, if at all possible. As for the supported by Dick giving up the mantle of Robin part... I may have misphrased it. You see, in the Batman Adventures: Lost Years comic (which is canon, and an extended version of what we saw in the episode Old Wounds), Dick clearly saying he is done being Robin, and goes off to train in various places, just as Bruce did. So basically, what I meant was that the theory is supported that there could only be one acceptable time in which Teen Titans could fit into the DCAU, that time being after Dick had trained and established himself as Robin, and before he went off to college (since after graduating he immediately gave up the mantle of Robin). So yes, as I said, it was improperly phrased, and probably gave the wrong impression.

I could perhaps create another paragraph in the topic that covers what was stated in the "Ages" edit from earlier, one which covers the Justice League Flash origin flashback (which I admit, I had forgotten about), as well as possible solutions to the problems that the flashback brought up. That way we don't have to worry about the other paragraphs/sub-topics getting overly inflated. --Venomaru 14:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood the phrasing. As for adding a new paragraph, after reading through the current state again, it actually occured to me that perhaps the Teen Titans stuff should actually be moved to it's own page, seeing as it currently takes up over half the DCAU page when it's placement there is debateable. Giving it a short paragraph like Krypto and then saying something like "For more information, please see the Teen Titans(Animated Series) page" could help. Then again, that could clutter the Teen Titans page and leave this one a little bare, so I don't know. -- 14:11, 12 April 2006 (EST)

You may be right, it does seem to be overtaking the topic. I'll create a seperate page for the debate, and I'll put the link to it on both the Teen Titans animated series page, and the DCAU page. --Venomaru 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done. I removed the topic from the DCAU article, and moved to its own page. --Venomaru 11:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism...

If the nonsensical vandalism is not stopped, you, the vandals, will be reported.--Venomaru 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

<,< Yeah....The whole "threat" thing works better on user talk pages. Anyway, you seem to be doing a bit to hurt the article yourself. I see now I made a few mistakes trying to correct it alone, but what, exactly, where you thinking linking to the same article twice on one section (within no more than two sentences, even) and removing so much valid content. Not to mention you don't give edit summaries or sign your talk page comments. Whoever vandalized this page to the state I found it in was sick, but your edits seem to be more about POV and control than informing the reader. Also, you may not have realized this, but The New Batman/Superman Adventures started in 1997 and ended in 1999, making your little revert inaccurate and my edit right on the money, sonny. ACS (Wikipedian) 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've worked on this section for ages, this is my baby. And second of all, your edits are redundant, and in many cases just plain wrong. For example, Teen Titans does not need to be refered to as "Teen Titans animated series". Of course it's an animated series, it's in the possible continuity for animated series section (not to mention that's not part of its official title). And if you were going to do that, why just Teen Titans? Why not Krypto too? And "Officially Canon Shows", of course they are canon, they're part of the "In-Continuity in the DCAU" section.

Third of all, Titans Go does NOT belong in the comics section, as Teen Titans has never been confirmed as in-continuity or not. And finally, the comic continuity section you had going. I like it, but it's pointless since Bruce Timm has said that some of them are in continuity, and some of them arn't. But if you want to re-add that, I'm fine with that. Oh, and when I was talking about vanadalism, I didn't mean you, Ace Class Shadow. I meant that other fellow, although your edits are a bit bothersome as well, not nearly as much so as his.

We should converse sometime, perhaps we could come up with some interesting ways to improve the article. --Venomaru 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather be "redundant" than confusing to the reader. This is a universe, not a continuously renamed series. Batman: the Animated Series isn't "seasons one And two" yet your writing makes it out to be. And how does "Newer" inform the reader? Everything after Justice League (Unlimited) isn't canon? Real smart. >.> Furthermore, separating the text filled section into a simple description rather than making it some kind of intro would also be better. Still, that's not so important. Now, one of your biggest problems, no offense, is your arrogance in regard to this whole article. You're manually revert everything with no regard for other people's inprovements. Don't think you're infallible. And "Your baby"? Your baby was mutilated by some random person and left like that until another random person came to help. Don't sweat that, though. No one can be expected to patron Wiki Twenty-four/Seven, but don't ever think an article is "yours". I can tell you've..."customized" it, but not necessarily for the better. I'm out to help the reader. Control ain't my objective. Can you say the same?

Oh and for the last time BATMAN/SUPERMAN ENDED AFTER GOTHAM KNIGHTS, COMPRENDÉ?! ACS (Wikipedian) 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You do know not all of this is my work, right? Alot of this was here before I got here. I just cleaned it up. And yes, everything that came after JLU isn't canon (unless specifically stated), I've been arguing that it may be for years, but theory doesn't cut it on wiki. Next off, nowhere does it say that the New Batman/Superman Adventures ended after the series. That note beside The New Batman Adventures (which is the official title, Gotham Knights is a fan title that has never appeared in an episode, or on a DVD). Anyways, yes, that note is not meant to state that it ended after, merely that at one point the two were compiled into one series. This would be easier to discuss outside of wiki, as I said before, we should converse and get things sorted out.

EDIT: You know what... I don't care anymore. I'm so sick of all of my efforts being undermined on wiki. And yes, I know that's the risk you take when you work on an article, but I'm just sick of it. I'm not just refering to you either Ace, you weren't all that bad... but I'm just tired of it all. Do what you want with the article, but try not to take it too far from its roots. From now on I'm going to stick to spectating, rather than contributing. Good luck to you, Ace Class Shadow. --Venomaru 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It did say "Later" compiled. The implies that it was separate like superman, then combined, which misinforms the reader. Anyway, dude, you might not believe this, but I feel the same way a lot. Look at Power Rangers: Mystic Force as just one example or my talk page. People who won't even register and only seem to appear after I've done most of the work take the some of my efforts and change key points to their liking. Think Video Game or Superhero movies. I was just about ready to do what you're doing before I saw your reply.

Dude, don't stress it. I'm sorry for being such a pain. Maybe I was trying to hard to make the article more accessible. Believe it or not, I actually hate redundancy. Feh. I'm gonna go try to download Lobo Flash cartoons. Wikipedia calls it a Wikibreak. Take one, but don't ever give up completely. No matter how many idiots disagree or how few people realize it, you're a good Wikipedian, and this place could always use more. ACS (Wikipedian) 02:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you, believe it or not I actually feel better. I think I will take a temporary wikibreak, and I still believe we can get this article in better shape (more accurate end dates, and whatnot) if we converse about it later. And I can see why people would need a wikibreak... you try not to take the edits personally, but when you work so hard on an article and then someone comes along and changes it. I don't know... it makes it all feel like "Why the heck did I do all that work if you were just going to remove it!?".

My Teen Titans controversy article comes to mind. It grew too large for this section, so I moved it to a page of its own. At which point it was deleted due to lack of sources. It dealt with the possibility that Teen Titans may or may not fit into DCAU continuity. In the end the evidence was 10 to 1 that it could be in-continuity, but that no confirmation exists. Unfortunately inter-fandom controversies are rarely documented, and as such can't be sourced. Quite bothersome,but that's how wiki is. Every bit of your work is subject to change at someone elses discretion. Yes, quite bothersome indeed. --Venomaru 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braniac Strikes Back

Braniac Attacks has made it back onto the article. At first, I wanted to cut it right out, but then I thought, would a link to the appropriate article be so bad? Then I leaned back towards, yeah, it's not DCAU, it simply recycles the designs and some of the voice acting. So I say it goes, but I wanted to ask.--Gillespee 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC) And now that I read it again, the sentence before it says: "The following spin-off films also are part of the continuity:" and it is has been stated that it's out of continuity. I'm removing it, if anyone objects, please let me know.--Gillespee 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep on deleting it. A while ago there was a portion that explained why it wasn't in continuity, for the sake of harmony you may want to reinclude that portion back in the article. But again, if people keep adding it and you keep on removing it, I doubt you'll have any objection from most who know that it isn't apart of the canon. Zero X Marquis 07:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I editted the Other Films & TV series to try to throw Braniac in there.--Gillespee 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

12.214.80.173 removed the section without even an edit summary. If you'd care to explain, please feel free, until then, I'm adding it back to the "Questionable" section.--Gillespee 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it (this time) and here's my rationale: there is no question, like the other two, that this is continuity. The creators have said that it isn't... if it is included in the article, it should be under a completely different heaading. Zero X Marquis 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence in about it right after the sentence about The Batman.--Gillespee 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Anyone think this possibly has enough meat between content/info on the various series to merit working it up to FA level? rootology (T) 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite up to snuff yet, myself. It should be sent for peer review first before attempting an FAC in any case. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind dropping it in? I did one the other day and don't want to look spammy. rootology (T) 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future DCAU film spin-offs?

In July, there was the announcement of future Warner Bros. animation films Justice League: New Frontier, Superman: Doomsday, and Teen Titans: The Judas Contract. Do we know if these are going to be part of the continuity, or simple stand-alone animated films? Cbing01 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DC Adventure Validity

Yes, 156.34.75.1, I understand that the comics based on the cartoon aren't always going to fit in the official. I added that list and particular comics on it for a reason. I listed them on the basis that they:

  • Expand on events in the cartoon. (The Lost Year Miniseries bridging the gap between B:TAS & TNBA)
  • Don't contradict established events.
  • Get referenced to or help to make sense. (Again, an episode of JLU made a brief reference to Batman Gotham Adventures #6.

Additionally the stories can work either way:

  • They can fit into the cartoons perfectly (Like the comics I listed).
  • They could fit in with minor tweaks.
  • They couldn't fit at all (The Batman Adventures #25).

The reason I'm typing this is because, well it seems like you and others on wikipedia choose deleting when there are other options. I'm merely trying to provide helpful information. I hope you will consider my comment and respond. Thanks. 71.115.210.70


Well first of all, coincidentally we both made a validity topic here at the same time, heh. I erased mine and added my comments to yours. I'd like to get to the core of the DC Adventures: Possible Canon section for a moment, as I was the one who removed it. Now, I won't remove it again until we get this sorted out, but it was my thinking that the section is a bit pointless. It seems silly to have a section dedicated to the possible canon of a few individual issues that seem to fit into DCAU canon. While it's true that the issues at hand don't contradict DCAU continuity, it's also true that on the whole, most issues of the various DC Adventures series' don't contradict the established continuity either.

Basically, what I'm saying is that while I agree with what the section is saying, there are hundreds of issues that do fit into continuity without a problem, and only a handful that don't. Infact, it would probably make more sense to have a small section dedicated to the few select issues that don't fit into DCAU canon, rather than all the ones that do. Oh, and I won't be signing this due to the fact that I no longer have an account. I purposely lost my account password, as at one time I had become sick of the whole wiki battle edit wars thing that runs rampant throughout wikipedia.

  • I'm glad we can be civil about this. Anyway, I agree that a lot of the comics could be canon, but that again doesn't motivate me to list a particular one alone. They also expand on further events or provide information (Like Catwoman's transition from B:TAS to TNBA, The background of Green Lantern in Batman Beyond). I'll talk more later. 71.115.210.70

It seems someone else has removed your section due to thinking it's speculation. So how about we move out of the realm of speculation and do something like this instead: Instead of a section dedicated to what might be in canon, we state something like "Most DC Adventures comics can be considered canon due to not conflicting with established continuity, infact, some even expand on previous events. However, some issues, due to being retconned are now out of continuity". And then we give a list of issues (or in the case of Adventures in the DC Universe... series'), that are no longer part of continuity. In that scenario there's no grounds for deletion, and you still get the point across that while the issues we list are not in continuity, every other issue (all the ones that arn't listed) can be considered canon.

It wasn't me who removed the section, but to me this whole thing seems like original research. It's canon - according to you. To me, that's the biggest problem.Gillespee 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request concerning the DC Adventures Comics

I was wondering if there's be consideration on making and entire page dedicated to the comics based on the DCAU. If yes, I have some info I'd be ready to supply to it, such as:

  • A. DC Comics Characters who didn't appear in the DC Animated Cartoons.
  • B. Trade Paperbacks and Digests.
  • C. Links to unused plots/altered stories.

Anyone up to it? 71.115.210.70


Well, each of the DC Adventures series' have their own pages. Why not just add your information to the various DC Adventures series' articles? Chances are if you made a whole new page to deal directly with the things you listed (and what we spoke of above) it would be deleted by someone for being original research (aka non-verifiable facts).

[edit] Recent Vandalism

Teen Titans is not considered DCAU canon. It has never been confirmed as canon, despite evidence that it could be. Justice League Heroes is based loosely in the comics versions of the characters, not their animated counterparts. The Legion of Superheroes cartoon has not been confirmed as canon either, and a lack of any DCAU VAs reprising their roles suggests it isn't. Not to mentino the fact that a younger Legion has been featured in Superman: TAS, and a slightly older version in JLU... and they were nothing like their Legion of Superheroes series counterparts. And the upcoming animated DC comic films have not been confirmed as continuity as of yet, and a recent article in Wizard #181 suggests they arn't. Basically, not every DC comics animated series ever created is part of the DC animated universe, only those that cross over into eachother. --156.34.82.37 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly vandalism (note the spelling, by the way), but you're right about the rest. How about a section for the article explaining which cartoons are NOT part of the DCAU, so that people don't keep adding Teen Titans, LSH, New Frontier, etc. to the list in ignorance. -- Wizardimps 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, I corrected the typo. I wrote the message in a rush. The page had a section like that in the past, but it ultimately overtook the rest of the page, so it was removed. I say instead of a section we post a list here (at the top of the discussion page), and some sort of message for any editing the article that these series' and movies are not in continuity. And on a side note, as for the upcoming movies, those have yet to be confirmed as continuity or not, but as I said the recent article is leaning towards not. It is really getting out of hand though, I mean how blind does a person have to be to not realise that "The Batman" and "Batman: TAS" can't possibly exist within the same continuity? --156.34.82.37 19:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever you decide to do, you should keep that link I posted with the Legion info with any Legion mention in your list. It's an interview with James Tucker, one of the JLU producers who's now in charge of the Legion cartoon, in which he says basicaly "maybe it is in the DCAU, maybe not, it's not important right now, I'll let the viewers make that decision for now." -- Wizardimps 20:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's useful information, no doubt. However, it will also no doubt lead to more people adding the LoSH series to the list because they misinterpreted the meaning of what he said, which basically equals "maybe". Which is the same thing the producers of Teen Titans said when it was around. We can add it to the section on the discussion page I spoke of above (once I write it), but until then it will just mean bad news for the main page. --156.34.82.37 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally created a new account. Now, what I was talking about above was something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars the tables and whatnot at the top. It will be impossible to miss, and will flatout explain the criteria for something being DCAU canon. Now all I have to do is figure out how to set that up for this talk page. --Venomaru 2.0 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. You'll notice the criteria at the top of the discussion page. --Venomaru 2.0 23:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I corrected some typos and reworded it a bit, but it looks good. Now hopefully people on the main page will see it before trying to add the series to the main page. -- Wizardimps 06:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A fantastic improvement. Now if only I could figure out how to put an edit screen-only visible message, that tells people to check out the header at the talk page before adding/editing. --Venomaru 2.0 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done. The message has been setup. Now ignorance can no longer be used as an excuse. --Venomaru 2.0 05:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman: Brainiac Attacks (again)

Well, someone has recently add "Superman: Brainiac Attacks" back to the article, and rather than automatically revert it I suggest we instead discuss it. It seems to me that this is another case of "I don't like it, so it's not part of the continuity" (as was the case with some people and Batman Beyond, Static Shock, and The Zeta project). However, the fact of that matter is that there are quite a few points which suggest it is in-continuity:

  • The animation style is identical to that of Superman: TAS.
  • Most of the voice actors from Superman: TAS reprise their roles.
  • Continuity-wise it both references past episodes, and fits nicely into continuity.
  • Lex Luthor and Mercy Graves have different VAs. However, this is not the first time a DCAU VA has been replaced. They recast Bane and the Penguin in Mystery of the Batwoman. Superman was recast for Justice League, and the list goes on.
  • Brainiac has a different voice and shows a level of emotion. But both in the comics and in DCAU continuity there are several "versions" of Brainiac. Most notably the Brainiac from the future's very own legion of Superheroes, who both showed emotion and had a different voice.
  • Lex Luthor acts whacky. Well, that was done so he'd somewhat match his chracterization in the "Superman Returns" film. But lets look at this from a historical standpoint, Lex has never been what one would call... stable. His shift from tyrant, to villain, to supervillain was filled with crazed moments. Does no one remember his obsession with Brainiac in the final season of JLU?
  • Duane Capizzi has stated that it wasn't his intent for it to be in-continuity. However, he never once said it was expressly 100% not meant to be either, merely that he didn't go into it with that mindset in place.
  • Curt Geda recently stated that the movie was indeed intended to continue the Superman animated series. Which adds final confirmation to the facts that were stated in this very post.

With that confirmation we can say without a shadow of a doubt that the film is in DCAU canon, and that no matter how an individual feels about the matter, that it's there in black and white, and should not be removed from the article. --Venomaru 2.0 05:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given your tortured and overly-literal reading of the Duane Capizzi interview (he says, and I quote, "...let me first say that the movie is not intended to be in continuity with the Timm-verse, despite utilizing those character and background designs."), I find it quite hypocritical for you to be so quick to claim that Curt Geda confirmed its continuity when his Animation Magazine interview states nothing of the sort. He talks about how the original series was special to him, but mostly he talks about doing something in the style of the original series. "In the style of" does not equate to being in continuity. The Cartoon Network bumpers for Batman were done in the style of the original series, too, with animation used directly from Justice League to make it look like Batman was asleep while the criminals were terrorizing Gotham. It's totally in the style of the real shows, so is it in continuity that Batman was asleep at his post? An affirmative answer to that query would be amazingly insipid.
There are other reasons that you're wrong, and other rejoinders to be given to the points you mention above, but since your Geda proof was your lynchpin of evidence, toppling that pretty much topples your argument. There's much more that's clearly out of continuity in Brainiac Attacks despite what little references were included. The writer - the real arbiter of continuity, due to his power over the story - says it's not intended to be in continuity. There's every real reason to simply see this film as some uninvolved DTV that appropriates (or misappropriates, according to one's opinion) the Superman series for its own purposes. If you want to move Heaven and Earth to pretend that it's all one and the same, that's your business (although you throw off so much else that definitely IS in continuity to do so). But there's no such thing as degrees of continuity. It is or it isn't. And everything seen so far points towards the latter. Alex Weitzman 09:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're incorrect about the fact that it points to the latter. Everything so far points to it being in continuity. But this discussion is over (it was continued on another talk page). It has already been decided that the proof I cited isn't good enough for wiki, and that's fine. However, it's completely untrue that it points to being out of continuity. Infact, let me show you the proceedings of that discussion:

":Curt Geda does not confirm continuity in that link. Please provide a quotation, because I just don't see it. Otherwise, the rest is just speculation. Show me where it says it is in-continuity, and not just in the style of, the DCAU. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article itself states it as a continuation of the series "A feature-length continuation of the popular 1996 show, Superman: The Animated Series, Brainiac Attacks sees the man in tights taking on old enemies Lex Luthor and Brainiac, while also wrestling with his desire to disclose his identity to the lovely Miss Lane." But in the interview itself, it's in the subtext. How they wanted to respect the source material of the animated series, and such.Here's the thing though, there's no proof it's not in-continuity.

So what's your story? You read the World's Finest' reviews, and wrote it off? Saw it and hated it? Well you know what... it's not a great film, it's true. Not as bad as they say, but still not great. It's quite cliched, and follows a set formula. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right (outside of official sources) to declare it as non-canon. Because guess what? Duane Capizzi never stated that it was outside of the DCAU continuity. He was very clear when he said he didn't write it with continuity in mind, but not once did he say he wrote it to be outside of canon.

Is the confirmation a bit weak? Perhaps, yes. But it's still the closet thing we've gotten to a statement so far (outside of Duane's extremely vague comments). I made a very solid case for it's continuity, whereas there's no factual evidence that places it outside of said continuity beyond fan-hatred. So Lex Luthor had a different VA, well, then it must be outside of the DCAU! Why, if they were to make a Batman: TAS film with differing voice actors, then they must be out of continuity too! Oh wait, they did that with Batman & Mr.Freeze: SubZero, where Batgirl's VA was replaced. And what else? Oh yes, Penguin, Bane, and Robin were re-cast for Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman. And don't even get me started on all the recast jobs in the actual series'.

Like it or not, the movie has all the signs of DCAU continuity, and no evidence to suggest it isn't. No one questioned Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman's continuity (which was a much better film, but still) when it had recasted VAs, so doing so with this one is just silly. So you don't like Brainiac Attacks, or you heard some negative stuff and wrote it off? Well, this may surprise you, but I didn't care for it either. Just because we didn't like something does not give us the right to deny its proper placement. To finish off, "Show me where it says it is in-continuity", you said. Well how about you show me where it isn't? My defense has evidence to back it up. While all you could possibly have is "I don't like it", or "different VAs!", both of which I have countered.

By the way, sorry if I was overly sarcastic, I'm tired and a bit irritated. --Venomaru 2.0 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't come off as sarcastic - or maybe you do, I stopped reading - but you do come off as a little bombastic. I read the article, including the part that has someone saying that it is not intended to be set in continuity, but I have never seen someone quoted as saying that it's not in continuity. If you can find someone who says it's in continuity, great, I'll support it, but otherwise, we actually have someone saying that it was intended not to be, which is made stronger by the fact that one might assume otherwise. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Venomaru, we get what you're saying. Wikipedia requires sources. Because we have at least one source with a quote that it was not intended to be in continuity despite the style, characters, referenced history, and actors, we're not supposed to say it's within continuity without a source clearly stating otherwise. No one questioned Mystery of the Batwoman because no one in charge of that one ever said it was not meant to be in continuity. That's how Wikipedia works. Too many things that just make sense turn out to be wrong. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to leave room for such things to creep in. All we need is one good source where the people in charge of that movie say it's really in continuity despite their original intentions. Doczilla 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the argument, "Well how about you show me where it isn't?" That doesn't work any more than saying, "Hey, you prove I never met a leprecaun." Doczilla 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I completely understand what you two are saying. And infact, I'd like to apologize for being somewhat abrasive. I've been fighting this not as a wiki issue, but as continuity issue, which is where I was mistaken. And as for being bombastic, well, I actually find that fairly interesting as no one has ever described my typing in that manner. I've never considered my manner of speech to be grandiloquent, but it's nice to know (and for the record, that's not sarcasm, or an underhanded comment, I find it genuinely interesting). But let me ask you this, would the source material itself not count as a source of sorts?

Anyways, as I've said before, I honestly didn't care for the film. I've been arguing this continuity issue on principle. But you also have to understand my point of view on this as well: Everyone expected this to be the next big thing, Superman: TAS's very own "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. To do what that film did for Batman: TAS. And when they found out Brainiac Attacks had more-or-less a paint-by-numbers plotline the outcry was immense. Suddenly every anti-Brainiac Attacks fanboy was looking for a way to exercise it from continuity.

I understand wikipeda is a place for sources, but bear with me for a moment. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, the film sequel to the Mortal Kombat film. It's generally hated by fans for bad acting, a large number of poor recasts, and just not living up to fan expectations. However, despite all of that, it's still canon to that film franchise, no matter how many fans despise it. Or, the Spider-Man comic series, not too long ago Peter Parker was given orgnaic webshooters in the Marvel comic continuity, much like he does in the Spider-Man films. And that doesn't suddenly make all Spider-Man comics non-canon to their own continuity. It's the same situation as Luthor being recasted to resemble his Superman film counterpart. Both changes are designed to make moviegoers feel more familiar with their other-medium counterparts.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm one of the only ones fighting to prove it's place in-continuity. That you fellows are only getting the mass-hatred side of the story, and that it's not a fans prerogative to be able to stricken things from canon at a whim. It's about logic, using your mind rather than your feelings. Once again though, I do understand what wikipedia is about, I'm just explaining the situation at hand (knowing full well it most-likely won't matter). --Venomaru 2.0 13:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Logically, I agree. It's the same continuity. My opinion on that, however, isn't enough for Wikipedia (although it should be, of course). If we link Brainiac Attacks to the continuity without a citation, too many people who once read it wasn't intended to fit into the continuity will repeatedly undo our work. So . . . we just need a source to counter the previous quote. Let's take care of it now so that it will better stand the test of time. Doczilla 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The funny thing is that no matter what is done, it will be undone. If we keep Brainiac Attacks in, people will undo it saying it's not in-continuity. If we leave it out, people will add it saying it is (I've seen both happen many a time). It's really a no win scenario. But definitive confirmation as to if it is (or isn't) would really be a plus. As of now we only have two very vague interviews one leaning towards isn't, and one leaning towards is. At this point we can only really hope for a third interview with clarification. --Venomaru 2.0 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"

And that's how it went. So know this, I will no longer fight for its continuity, but there's nothing in it that places it outside of said continuity. --Venomaru 2.0 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Proof that Brainiac Attack doesn't fit

I'm not talking about usual voice actor recasting or quality of the story either (I'm between liking and disliking the move). It's all about what's gone on before/after.

Since Brainiac's first DCAU appearance to JLU, he and Lex had trust issues between them. He had to force Lex into building a new body for crying out loud. Yes, they may be old enemies to Superman, but it seems like they were meeting each other for the first time.

The reason Mystery Of The Batwoman is considered canon, is due to not conflicting with the DCAU. Even using elements from it as well. Such as:

  • The Penguins mention of the DCAU fictional country Kasnia, which was at the time the location for the Justice League episode Maid Of Honor.
  • Another hinting of the relationship between Bruce and Barbara.

Reason behind the animation design, probably cheaper than creating new styles for a one shot movie.

I hope my points were good and valid. 71.115.231.16 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/c/_/Talk%7EDC_animated_universe_0f2f.html"