Talk:Superman Returns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superman Returns article.
Superman Returns is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: August 2, 2006
To-do list for Superman Returns: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] WP:GA to do

as of: 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) — Great job in the re-write. Recent edits address most - if not all - of past objections, (see below). Article needs to marinate in its gooodness for about a week to see if it remains stable. Please renominate in about a week from today. - Davodd 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement as article strives for WP:FA

  1. The related media section needs attention. Possibly written out as prose instead of a list. OR made into an info box for quick reference. - Davodd 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. References needed for disputed facts (or they need excised and moved to talk page until citation issue addressed) - Davodd 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

Most neeeding immediate help:

  • Box office results
  • Reactions (yuck)
  • Promotion of the film - do we need a zillion links there?

Needs deleting/rewriting/proseifying/infoboxing:

  • Related Superman Returns media
Peer review Superman Returns has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
??? This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Superman, an attempt to build an encyclopedic guide to the Superman saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines

Contents

[edit] Questions

I've heard this was actually FILMED on HD film, not just converted onto an HD DVD. Is this true? Anyone know?

[edit] What about the 747 in some of the posters?

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.

[edit] Good Article?

There is no way this can succeed as a Good Article at this point. The criteria are listed as follows:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Broad in its coverage. That it is.
  4. Neutral point of view. Some people think it is, some people think it isn't.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)

[edit] Sequel Section

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)

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)
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)

Article needs to be updated:

An article in the Los Angeles Times had Alan Horn, the president of Warner Bros. Studios stating the following:

"Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins." Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.

'I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd.'

Still, he's betting Warner has firmly reestablished the "Superman" franchise and is planning another installment for summer 2009."

Furthermore, this article from Yahoo movies, address http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20060818/115588788100.html, has WB production president Jeff Robinov stating the following:

""'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made.""

So, I'd mention those sources so it's clearer that a sequel is very likely despite the film's gross.

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)

[edit] Good Article review

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)

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)

[edit] Superman Returns (additional plot elements)

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)

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)
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)

There, I was bold and made up List of Superman Returns Plot Elements and Trivia integrating all the trivia and sub plot stuff. Much better, cleans up the cruft from the article, and the freed space can be now devoted to a proper Cast section. Once thats done, some massive copyediting, and I betcha we got us a FA. rootology (T) 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] more changes

I've made massive cuts and changes to this article:

  • forked off all the crap and cruft to a side article that is better suited for it
  • tried to clean up the writing in many of the sections
  • massively re-ordering of all the categories to make more sense
  • lost the table for the Cast section to reformat per the Casablanca and Revenge of the Sith articles
  • Tried to de-fan the synopsis and expand it slightly; will probably trim that even more after (wanted to clean first)
  • production budget section was a mess, I think that's better

Most neeeding immediate help:

  • Box office results
  • Reactions (yuck)
  • Promotion of the film - do we need a zillion links there?

Might need deleting:

  • Related Superman Returns media

Anyone willing to take a crack at de-fan-izing it further, and taking out any weasle-word stuff I missed? rootology (T) 01:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody!
I'm currently working on the lusophon version of this article, and came here for some ideas. I've seen the discussions, and all that stuff, and, hell, you guys did a pretty good job in the "production" section! =D
However, although not finished, our version of the "cast" section is problably what you're looking for. Descriptions of the role, the actor, all that stuff...
I'm not sure if you would have time to translate into English, but if any of you guys speaks portuguese, it could be helpful.
FlavioTerceiro 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wish I spoke Portugese right about now... rootology (T) 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. An user changed generally good reviews to mixed reviews. In my searchs, I couldn't find an amount of negative reviews that could justify the change. I didn't remove it - the only change i made in this article war reverting the changes made in the "cast" section - because I think it should be discussed...

Another thing is the idea of removing "Superman Returns media". I really don't see why it should be removed. The four prequels tell a lot of interesting things, like Lex's relationship with Stanford, how he spent his time in jail, his relationship with Kitty, all that stuff. In the lusophon version, I'm going to add these stuff.

I changed back those couple of POV changes that user had put in. For the related media, I'm not averse to it staying now that it's not just a list but that picture needs to be smaller, it looks like a billboard.

FlavioTerceiro 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

Comment of the WP:GA review as of 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

A good start on what will be a great WP:GA with a overhaul of writing style and tone. But as of this edit: [1], it fails. SUGGESTION: this article should borrow the structure and writing style of V for Vendetta (film), which is a prime example of how to write a featured article about a genre-type film.

===WP:GA Criteria used===

  • Well Written - FAILED - Choppy, poorly written and confusing prose throughout with extremely poor flow; Example from the lead:

... The screenplay is by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris.
Following a five-year absence, Superman returns to Earth. ...

:Additionally, the entire article should be re-evaluated as to its structure to be less Superman fan-oriented and more encyclopedic. (See: Writing about fiction below)

  • Factually accurate - FAILED use of Weasel words - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
  • Broad in coverage - PASSED
  • NPOV - FAILED; use of Weasel words - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and
  • Stable - FAILED: Substantive changes within the past 7 days [2]. (in 41 edits)
  • Image use - FAILED. Good picture selection marred by non-encyclopedic and fan site-type captions as: "A digitally recreated Jor-El." (Who are the actors pictured?); "Superman finds a surprise from Lex Luthor." (Again, actor should be mentioned- and probably the location and its importance to the film).
  • Writing about fiction (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)): Out-of-universe perspective - FAILED. Although this article is well on its way to being a great Wikipedia article, it needs to shed the fan-based tone. It needs to be the historical document of an important film in 2006 that it should be. This includes a full explanation (as appropriate) of the Superman mythos without harming Wikipedia's mission of being a NPOV encyclopedia. Unlike the hundreds (thousands?) of Superman fan sites, we are the only site editing articles like this for serious scholars of popular culture.

Davodd 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The strike-outs above seem to indicate that this article may now qualify for Good Article status. While it has been hugely improved, much of the writing is still immature, unsourced, speculative, and/or unbalanced (see "Production History" section). Shouldn't this be fixed before it is nominated again? I hate to see an article be marked as "Good" with such cheesy writing still plaguing the article. -- Renesis13 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction Section

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)

68.81.77.76 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)You should put up the score it got on rottentomatoes.com, too, or perhaps have it replace the IMDB one, since Rotten Tomatoes monitors the reaction of the critical community. (the Cream of the Crop score, for example, is highly representative of the critical community's opinion because it tallies the number of positive and negative reviews amongst the most reputable publications in and, on occasion, out of the U.S., rather than grouping them in with blogs)

The IMDB score is a sketchier representation of what the critical community thinks because it is formulated by the tallying of the opinions of anonymous internet users, not paid movie critics.

So, if you're going to talk about the critics' reaction, use Rotten Tomatoes' score, or at least include it, because it is the more accurate of the two.

There should really be more explanations for how die hard true comic book fans feel about the film. Because although most critics were positive for the films release, Not everyone was happy with the results on this film (Even me, for the record). Most superman fans that I've heard were not exactly pleased with the story being all about the flicks staring Chris Reeve rather than a reintroducing story for newer audiences to admire the character.


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)

What about all those other Comicbook Movie Articles that mentions fans Approval or disaproval to portrayal? If I remember correctly, I seem to recall one of the articles on the batman films mentioning Fans Being Disapointed through what was shown on Film.

give me a link to those pages. It doesn't matter if they have them or not, as a rule it is too hard to measure fan reaction, because there too many fans to actually get a feel for what they think. You say you like it, I say that I don't. How can you tell me exactly what the fanbase thinks as a whole? You may know 50 people that like/dislike the film, and I may know 50 people that like/dislike the film; who's right? No one is right, because you can't say for sure which one is a better reading of the entire fan population's reaction. 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This I believe was the article I was thinking about for the Batman film Batman & Robin. From how it's described, it's pretty accurate if you were to ask any comicbook fans for a Major Character flawed portrayal. You can also try these,

Fantastic Four (film)

The Punisher (2004 film)

Daredevil (film)

although I am not to sure if they are accurate or not, it is still better to mention The People who are Loyal To The ComicBook Heroes that They Admire.

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)

No Sources, Come On. Have you not learned by now that ALL sources are on the bottom? Articles always have sources on the bottom.

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)

[edit] Images

What do you guys think of a small additional images section at the bottom of the article, as the last section. I saw Padme_Amidala#Costumes this and thought of--perhaps 3-4 screen shots, in very small form visibly, that can be clicked on. It should fall under the banner of "fair use" but I've never seen something like this on a movie article. Thoughts? rootology (T) 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) meets Jason Lane (Tristan Lake Leabu).
Superman in flight.
Superman and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth).
Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, foreground) with an alien crystal.

Yay/nay? If no objections I'll add it in later. It's covered under fair use I believe, adds to the depth of the article with visual references, and shows actual images of the film for encyclopediac value. rootology (T) 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but is there a way to make the gallery pics just a tad bigger. It's good to keep them small, but they are so small they are hard to make out. Bignole 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No way in gallery that I can see, only tables. Check this below... rootology (T) 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Clark Kent (Brandon Routh) meets Jason Lane (Tristan Lake Leabu). Superman in flight. Superman and Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey, foreground) with an alien crystal.
That's better (at least to me) for image size, but the gallery format is better for an article page. There has to be a way to do it, but I don't know because I'm not that familiar with HTML. Bignole
I wish, but I'm not seeing it in the docs. I'll look more... rootology (T) 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer = no. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial". Can't be done except in table form. rootology (T) 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. I must commend you on an excellent job cleaning up the article. I tried to stay away from it, because I think that too many people trying to do the same job, with different mindsets, at one time will create problems, and I'm glad that for the most part other editors are staying clear as well so that you can do what you think is best for the article, and then after it's all said and done we can all step back and see it (and if there is a need) correct any addition issues. Bignole 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fair use policy allows the use of photos, as long as they complement the text at hand. Those stand alone photos do not meet its criteria, namely of providing information or critical commentary. Also see WP:IMAGE for suggestions on image placement and inclusion in an article. --Madchester 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but can you show me where in the fair use policy such a thing as a small gallery of images is excluded? Your specific things you mention are not found by me directly in the text of FUP. rootology (T) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUP#Images allows the use of film screenshots for critical commentary. At the moment, those gallery images do not meet that purpose. As a stand-alone section they don't provide additional details. For example, the Marlon Brando screenshot is fine, since it provides visual commentary to the "Marlon Brando's role" section. The use of a gallery is fine for the Amidala costumes section, since the (copyright) images specifically relate to a Costumes section in the wardrobe design of her character. They allow users to compare the Star Wars designs to their real-life inspirations, which are also pictured. --Madchester 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale

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)

[edit] Review versus Reviews

There seems to be a little dispute about the proper terminology: is it "reviews" or "review". In reality, both are correct and it's really a matter of preference to which you use. "Review" just states that you are referring to all the reviews together, and "reviews" is about how the individual reviews are. Both are still the same thing, in essence. So, please come here to figure out which you would like, so that these edit wars will cease. Though, in my opinion it should be left to the person that originally wrote it. Bignole 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I believe it should be "review" is that "mostly positive reviews" seems to say that we somehow know for each review whether it was positive overall. With many reviews it is hard to know whether the review is overall positive or negative, and saying we know that seems to me to be POV. Saying it received "mostly positive review" implies instead that most of the content of all critical review of the movie came back positive (which is true), even if we didn't make a presumption about whether individual reviews leaned one way or the other. "Review" seems to be less POV and I did it to keep people from changing it to say "mixed" reviews which is the worst option because all movies receive "mixed" review, and it implies that it had as much bad review as it did positive. -- Renesis13 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good reason (not taking a side, just providing a little feedback). One quick thing, so that this doesn't grow out further... POV and NPOV are not antonyms. POV, per Wikipedia's definition, isn't really Point of View, but rather Points of View. I have made this mistake myself, and I just wanted to get that out there so that we can try to correct that. It seems to be a common mispractice among editors. Anyway, sorry to digress. About the "review/reviews", do you have a proposed "better sentence structure" that could best illustrate your point. Maybe there is another way of expressing that so that the other editors could see it from your side. Just a suggestion, and the same goes to the other editors that want it the other way. Sometimes rewriting the sentence helps to get the message across a little clearer. Bignole 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Have just reverted this myself: "... received mostly positive review" makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. Either the film received a single review or several reviews. So, you could say "the film received a mostly positive review", but since there are blatantly many reviews out there, you would have to state which one of the many was mostly positive. Hope this clarifies things. (See grammatical number.) Chris 42 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think see what Renesis is trying to say, but it wouldn't be worded in the way that the sentence is worded right now. Right now the sentence is describing individual reviews for this film, not the view of this film as a whole. If you were trying to explain it as how many critics thought it was positive then you would use "reviews", but, if you wanted to say something like: "The overall review, by critics, of this film was mostly positive" then that's another story. In this case you are generalizing the opinion of the majority into a single voice. Bignole 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What is there now makes perfect sense to me, and is factual. The majority of critics liked it, and therefore it received mostly positive reviews. Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I apologise if I am), but I'm guessing that English is not Renesis' first language. An acceptable alternative may be: "The film received a mostly favorable critical reaction". On the other hand, if the critics' verdicts were split 50-50, then you would say "The film received mixed reviews" or "a mixed reaction". Chris 42 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Rene's language, but my examples works for his word. The catch to that example is that you have to be able to apply the majority of critics' responses into one voice, which you can't really do, because that would take a lot of counting and would have to be precise (otherwise it kind of loses it's merit). The best thing to do is probably what is already done, which is take a generalized look at the multiples as multiples. For the most part, all the top notch critics liked the movie. It's all really in how you word it and what meaning you are trying to convey, but with Wikipedia you have to convey a meaning that any reading can understand easily, and the way it is now is probably the simpliest way to express the films reception. Bignole 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, English is my first language, and my mother was an English teacher so I grew up being very picky about grammar. I think you've completely missed the point and context of the argument. "Mostly positive review" does not make "no grammatical sense whatsoever." The point is to AVOID referring to "reviews" (in the individual sense). The use of the word "review" (yes, singular) is meant to refer to the combined response from all critics.
With a quick search I have found several uses identical to this case:
  • "Her first book, "Avalon Within: Inner Sovereignty and Personal Transformation Through the Avalonian Mysteries" (BookSurge, 2005), was published to positive critical review." [3]
  • "In terms of films, 1986-7 was certainly an interesting year in that both That's Life and Duet for One were released to positive critical review for Julie Andrews' work" [4]
  • "Essentially, positive critical review can’t hurt a novel’s chances" [5]
  • "Again, the novel did very well commercially, despite a lack of positive critical review" [6]
  • "It has now been performed in four countries and three different languages, receiving positive critical review." [7]
As you can see, the word "review" can be used in a meaning broader than just one review. -- Renesis13 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "critical" is er, critical in this instance. If this is what you meant, maybe the sentence should be changed to "In general, the film was released to positive critical review."? Chris 42 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because that is the exact phrase used in the quotes doesn't mean its the only way it can be used. FYI, I searched for "positive critical review" to pinpoint uses in that manner. Anyway, I don't disagree with adding "critical". I would suggest, "The film received mostly positive critical review." -- Renesis13 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's an acceptable compromise.:-) Chris 42 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that we have come to an understanding, and hopefully others will see this discussion before editing. Bignole 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 14 images?

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)

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:SReturns05.jpg. 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)

[edit] Reactions section

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)

Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine stated, "The best Hollywood movies always knew how to sneak a beguiling subtext into a crowd-pleasing story. Superman Returns is in that grand tradition. That's why it's beyond Super. It's superb." (TIME is owned by Time-Warner, Inc., the film's producer.)

[edit] External links - movie set QTVRs

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)


It's been four days now and no-one has balked, so I made the change.

--Nemeng 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images, once again

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)

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)

[edit] 2006 Monaco Grand Prix Advertisements

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)

[edit] Most external links removed (?)

Done unilaterally by ReyBrujo on 30th September without consultation or discussion. Is everyone okay with this?... --Nemeng 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I didn't follow the links but none of them seem incredibly important to the article. -- Renesis (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Done unilaterally by ReyBrujo on 30th September without consultation or discussion
Wow, what about Wikipedia:Be bold? =D
Well, personally i think some of then could stay, i even used some of then in the lusophon version, but in the "references" section, not in "external links" - one of the thinks Rey recommended. In "External links" should be only pages related directly to the movie, like official sites, offical myspace...
FlavioTerceiro 13:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually worked on the production in a small capacity, to take 360-degree panoramic photographs of the S-R sets in Sydney. A link to these was one of those erased by ReyBrujo. Is there enough interest to re-instate it?
What about other links, like to the [bluetights.net] discussion forum?, or [Guy Hendrix Dyas] (the production designer's) website?, or the [Bad Astronomy Review] which looks at all the scientific errors in the film/plot?
There is plenty of high-quality S-R related material online which is at least worth a link :?)
--Nemeng 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, then put them back. I mean, no one seems to object. I really don't edit around here, but in the lusophon version of this article, so...

My mind pretty much changed after I looked at some of the links you posted.

FlavioTerceiro 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Office Results

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)

[edit] Superman Returns' music

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)

[edit] Sequel to Superman II not IV

Bryan Singer has stated in many interviews that Superman Returns uses Superman II as a vague history and does not follow the continuity set by Superman III or IV. Therefore, the "preceded by" should be Superman II. It is not a question of the Superman franchise. But of continuity, remakes do not contain a "preceded by". Batman Begins is not "preceded by Batman & Robin". This is one of many links that could be given as a source saying that Singer refers to Returns as a partial sequel to Superman II: http://www.firefox.org/watchtower/archives/8

The Filmaker 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


He never said it was a sequel to Superman II. He just merely said that the first two would be a "vague history", which means nothing more than "to answer the questions that Supe Returns creates please see the first two". There are too many continuity problems for it to be a "sequel". The movie is more a homage to the first two than anything. Secondly, the Superman IV shouldn't even be there because it was agreed upon that nothing would go there, because really Superman Returns is it's own movie, the start of a new franchise, not the continuation of anything (i.e. like Batman Begins). Please keep trying to put it in there. But, for intents and purposes, if Superman Returns was part of the same franchise, then Superman IV would go there, because you do not put "preceded by" in the basis of continuity but on the basis of when the films came out. Otherwise you'd have tons of films that retcon each other all the time, like the Halloween movies. Bignole 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, neither what Bignole or I did was vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not. Since when is IMDB the center of all things truthful? Generally, IMDB is considered to be an inferior citation as anyone can submit information that is only filtered by administrators that know little about cinema in the first place. This is the same reason that we do not cite other Wikipedia articles. Finally, the IMDB page does not stand up to actual testimonial statements from the director himself. Even the Casino Royale page refers to it as following the previous Bond films, yet in the film he is shown to be gaining his 00 status (restarting the entire continuity). I am under the impression that IMDB's "follows" and "followed by" movie connections are in fact referring to the franchise as a whole, not the individual franchises. The Filmaker 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD covers

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)

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)

[edit] As far as I know, Bryan Singer is still signed for the sequel

Regardless of what a persistent vandal would have you believe, Bryan Singer will be helming the sequel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.119.123 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuperman_Returns_eeda.html"