Talk:Batman OnStar commercials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Batsuit 2 Page Relocation 3 Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas batman.jpg 4 Cost

[edit] Batsuit

The batsuit used on the Onstar commercials is clearly the George Clooney batsuit from Batman & Robin (film). It is NOT the Val Kilmer suit from "Batman Forever". Here is a pic of the Clooney suit, and here is the suit from the OnStar commercials. The only difference is that the yellow was added to the chest symbol. Here is a pic of the Kilmer 'panther' suit. You be the judge. I would really like to keep the info on the page because I truly believe my information is fact. I may not be able to find a WP:RS on this, but the pictures pretty much speak for themselves.

The pictures can't "speak for themselves". We need a source. It's good that the Batsuit stuff is gone completely until someone has a secondary source to back it up. Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, look at the abs-sculpting - the OnStar costume looks much more like the Kilmer costume than the Clooney costume in that aspect. The belt is Clooney, and the Bat-symbol looks like a repainted Clooney one, but otherwise it's a closer call than some suggest. In addition, the oft-repeated hate for Clooney's "Bat-nipples" seems to have glossed over their inclusion on the Kilmer costume, judging from those pictures... ntnon (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Relocation

Unless there is an objection, I'm going to move this to Batman OnStar commercials, which seems more correct to me. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a solid consistency, but things are named different ways. On the video game articles, for instance, you have Time Crisis (series) and on film you have Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), but you also have Batman film series. I prefer keeping it here than at the non-parentheses titel. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The parentheses are generally used for disambiguation. For instance, you could refer to the "Pirates of the Caribbean" and be referring to any number of things; Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride), Pirates of the Caribbean (video game) or even the franchise as a whole (Pirates of the Caribbean). Because of this, both Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) or Pirates of the Caribbean film series could be correct. But you wouldn't refer to the Batman film series as Batman (film series), because you would never refer to the series itself as simply "Batman". The same applies here. Examples where "Batman (XXX)" makes sense are Batman (1989 film), Batman (comic book) and Batman (video game). Each of these items are, at their core, simply entitled "Batman", but require the parentheses for disambiguation. This is *not* the case here. Batman OnStar commercials is a much more accurate and descriptive title. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PotC has been bounced at various titles; see history for the most recent move on 28 July 2007, and again in August. But I think your extended line of reasoning makes sense and support the move to your suggested title. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There was also a promotion to win a car from these ads or a walk on role in 'the next batman' which didn't get made until Batman Begins. I know Thom Rauch of Milwaukee won a car, but he had to sell it because he could not afford the taxes. He then relocated to Virginia and then joined the USAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeSims (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas batman.jpg

Image:Thomas batman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

Comments about the high estimate being "BS"... compare these contrasting statements:

"It's certainly expensive to produce commercials that are essentially movie quality, which is what we were all striving for when we used Batman," Huber said. He wouldn't say how much General Motors spent on the Batman campaign, which began in early 2000, or comment on OnStar's revenue targets.

Sanfilippo, the market analyst, estimates the automaker spent about $1 million to film each of a handful of Batman commercials and another $300,000 to $500,000 each time a commercial ran on prime-time television."^[1]

"Three 30-second TV spots drove home OnStar's message. The first, "Batcave," featured the trusted butler Alfred introducing OnStar's installation on board the Batmobile. "Minor Setbacks" depicted OnStar rescuing the cowled crusader from emergencies: a locked door and low fuel. In "Joker Face," the Batmobile's bat-shaped airbag deploys during a car chase in which Batman trys to catch the villainous quipster...

That ad campaign—estimated at $50 million and created with the Campbell-Ewald agency in Warren, Mich.—put OnStar on the map."^[2]

The first quote is an outside estimate; the second refers to the whole "ad campaign" (for the first three only, however). If $50m is the accepted total, could buying airtime really have totaled $44m of that...?ntnon (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At the time, I knew that I had added that fact in, and the article I read didn't specifically mention the OnStar commercials, which is why I just said they only launched a campaign. As the original stood it didn't sound very sure of itself, which is why I reverted back to my version of the sentence. Now, you seem to be bringing in a new source, so my origial assertion of BS does not stand. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)