Talk:List of films based on DC Comics publications/Archive 1

Template critique?

I've built a template for DC Films, to match Template:Marvel Comics films. it's here: User:ThuranX/Sandbox. Please leave comments BELOW it, on the sandbox page. Do NOT create a talk page for my sandbox, and do not edit the template directly. Thanks. ThuranX 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Separation of years

Is there a reason why there's a separation of '2001-2006', and '2007-present'? Shouldn't they just be combined, with impending films being separated? Just a thought. I intend to change it if no feedback is given, and maybe even give it a new look. Harish101 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it slightly, and I went by the already written years for forthcoming releases as I have no time to research the films. Also, many films that are given no release dates do not have references, even on their comic book articles which do not seem to suggest a film in the pipelines. I have left them up, but if anyone wants to look into these unlinked films then sort it out, go for it. Otherwise, many of these were linked to either old films (assumably be just adding '(film)' at the end of the link, i.e. [[Ronin (film)|Ronin]] which linked the film starring Robert De Niro, as oppose to linking to the comic book character's film) which I've unlinked, or to blank pages. I've tried linking films where possible, like by going to their comic book articles and linking to a reference of the films there. Just letting you people know. => Harish101 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of The Fountain from this page.

Currently The Fountain is listed in this page under 2002-2006. My checks revealed that the film is not based on the comic, but the other way round. So by right, the film should not be under this listing.

Regards

Blacktoxic 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid your change, not knowing you had started a topic (as most start a topic and wait for a while before doing changes). My bad => Harish - 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I put The Fountain back under the 2002-present list. While the film was not based off of the Vertigo comic, it did come out the previous year before the film. I believe the spirit of the wiki isn't to list films based on comics (after all, most of the films are original stories rather than straight adaptations from the comics), so I replaced it. Perhaps a better title for the page would be "List of DC Comics films". - Jgarc122 8:13 (MST), 22 September 2007

Namor the Sub-Mariner.

What about the Namor's film ? Why isn't it in this article ? Will go on screen on 2010 if I'm not mistaking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.42.54 (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know what are you talking about!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.58.144.94 (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I know it's hard to keep up with these things, but haven't Jonah Hex and The Flash film adaptations been green-lit too? I don't see them on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.94.188 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Spirit is a DC hero?

The Spirit comic only is actually published by DC Comics, but is not a DC character.

Maybe, the Spirit film (so bad) must be removed of this list.OscarFercho (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC) I think It must still be added to the list though, because it is published by DC Comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.110.215 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has The Losers been removed?

It is a Vertigo title and is currently being filmed. Also The Losers uses the namesake of an existing DC property. I had once done the blunder of adding the name when it was in pre-production, but now it is completely underway, moreso than Green Lantern or Untitled Dark Knight Sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da gr8 1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

swamp thing

the swamp thing is a vertigo-character.132.252.185.42 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Swamp Thing eventually became a Vertigo title, this has not always been the case. It was certainly not so when the Swamp Thing movies were released. The Vertigo line of comics did not begin until 1993.Wyldstaar (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

gen13

why was gen13 removed? it is listed in the template.78.49.113.142 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fountain confusion

is the fountain based on the comic or is the comic based on the film. if comic based on the film then it should be removed since then this film would not be based on the comic. Gman124 ^talk 03:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this post will draw some attention and lead to the resolution of this issue. The Fountain was a film script by Darren Aronfsky. But he could not get a film greenlit, so he consciously made the decision to rework his script into a comic book, under the strong belief a film would never be made. So had he been right, 10 years later as we are now, the fountain would be just another Vertigo one-shot. Just a comic book. The comic was published months before he was surprised that the film was greenlit to even begin production, and was around a full year before the completionsnd release of the film. Can we please return The Fountain to the list? Whether or not the story was originally intended for film is completely and utterly irrelevant. How many hundreds of times have unproduced scripts for cult films and television shows been used for comics? If Buffy season 8 were upon us, would the comic not be first? Alien vs Predator anyone? So the Foubrain is a movie based on a DC Vertigo comic. If it isn't included, then Stardust should be removed! It was never a comic, it's an illustrated storybook! Like a picture book for children. And it's copyright is owned by Neil Gaiman, who used it to publish less that a year later the full novel in text form he wrote BEFORE turning it into a picture book (again, not a comic). I'm not an advocate for removing Starsust, but by the flawed "logic" that the Fountain is excluded, Starsust had double the reason for such exclusion. Can we please come to a consensus to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.170.101 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Justice League: Mortal...?

I frequent this page every other day or so, and I noticed that Justice League: Mortal had been put up again. Last I heard (and this was a while ago), the film had been scrapped for various reasons. Furthermore, the release of the Green Lantern movie in 2011 is a further nail in JL:M's coffin. There's also the fact that the movie is slated to come out in 2011 yet there's no casting news on it whatsoever. Furethermore, the link cited for it still lists films such as Terminator: Resurrection and Iron Man 2 as "Other Upcoming Films", along with the 2009 movie Jurassic Park IV. Guess I missed that one. But yeah, all sarcasm aside, I'm deleting it off the page unless anyone can find any recent material that says this movie is going to happen. LoveWaffle (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolute Justice

Should Smallville: Absolute Justice be listed here? Yes, it did air as a two-hour movie event, but it aired as part of the regular Smallville season. I'd argue that it does not qualify to be listed under the Television Films section of the page because it is a part of the regular Smallville season, and most likely will not be played together (back-to-back) in reruns. If it does, than what keeps the Justice League episodes "Secret Origins", "The Savage Time" and "Starcrossed" from also appearing under those sections. LoveWaffle (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, isnt that included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurassickid97 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right here.-5- (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Superman reboot

I think that the new Superman movie must be included; there's a enoguh info and references about it. Greetings to everybody.OscarFercho (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to wait until it has an announced and confirmed release date.-5- (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently added it with references which have been acceptable for the Superman films page, yet was removed by an anonymous IP. There's an announced releases date with casting announcements making it suitable enough for pre-production, much like TDKR. I have therefore added the Superman film to the list due to these accepted references for another Wiki page. -- Harish (Talk) - 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no announced and confirmed released date at this time, and as with the history of this article no film gets listed until there's a confirmed date. We can afford to wait.-5- (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the movie must be included now. What we wait? Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no deadline, so we can afford to wait until a release date is confirmed.-5- (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

-5-, I don't think you see this perspective that I'm trying to get at. We have all the time in the world to do an article, no doubt, but if the references are good enough to be quoted for the Superman (film series) article, how can it not be shown on this particular article. Shouldn't there be a uniform in information provided between articles? This is where I feel it makes no sense that one (FA) article states a date, and another cannot even show it to be in pre-production because a user doesn't consider the date official enough. Not trying to negate your character, it just doesn't make sense. -- Harish (Talk) - 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Superman (film series) should be Superman in film, and the current project in development is only a project. We can see from the history in that article that there have been numerous false starts. This is a list of films, and we cannot be sure that the project will become a film. The start of filming is usually the threshold. I think that a link to the "See also" section works for now, and we can have an indented bullet indicating that the film series article covers the project in development. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, Erik. Does this mean we should remove TDKR though? Until production formally begins that is. -- Harish (Talk) - 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question... looking at the "List of DC Comics live action films" table, maybe we can do away with the "Forthcoming" heading and have Green Lantern be part of the rest of the list. As for The Dark Knight Rises, it depends. It is more likely to be produced than your average project in development, but still, I'm hard-pressed to go about calling it a "film" already. Maybe have a sentence about both possible Batman and Superman films after the table? To at least establish that distinction for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming films

I believe that this page should be set up more like the marvel one, where its either in production or in development, instead of announced or forthcoming. im gonna change it. both films r filming, therefor, r in production.00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)NTC TNT (talk)

Additional films

Okay, whoever keeps on putting in those additional DC films better stop FOR THE MOMENT. I am pretty sure the films are in the works, but you need sources before you can put them in there. I will go ahead and put some. For The Flash: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/03/29/flash-movie-still-in-the-works-says-screenwriter/. For Aquaman: http://screenrant.com/aquaman-movie-pauly-89793/. For Green Lantern 2: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1665719/green-lantern-sequel-ryan-reynolds.jhtml. For Wonder Woman: http://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-movie-writer-sandy-177300/. And for the Batman reboot: http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/exclusive-rumor-batman-2016-reboot-based-arkham-asylum-video-game-more-green-lantern. These may not be accurate though, so be careful. I have done the same thing for the Marvel one, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai0618 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Need official announcements, not only isolated declarations, that's speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is box offie

Where is box ofie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

New movies

The flash and justice. League were annoced to come out in 2016 and 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.199.125 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The films were rumored to be announced; but they were not officially announced. Therefore, they can't be included. || Tako (bother me) || 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No they were annoced yesterday at comic con. Look it up.

Hey dum butt look it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.199.38 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, they weren't announced. Only a Batman/Superman film was announced. || Tako (bother me) || 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Jo mom

The flash and justice league were annoced two days ago at comic con and were givin a 2016 and 2017 release date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.202.18 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not, were not announced, oncly wre mentioned as "tentative" films.OscarFercho (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

missing

missing "The Dark Knight:a xxx porn parody" has the "Batman:a xxx porn parody" which are 2 different films I might add.1.123.17.132 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Spirit does not belong on this list

The Spirit was based on a property owned by the estate of William Eisner. DC had distribution rights to the character for a time, but at no point did the company ever own the creative rights. Furthermore, the film was made without any involvement from DC or, for that matter, any offshoots of its parent company Time Warner. As such, it should be removed from this list. 76.97.82.9 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm Agree with that point of sight.OscarFercho (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tales of the Black Freighter

Why is Tales not considered to be an "own film"? What does that even mean? It's a direct-to-video animated feature produced by WB Animation. I think mentioning it in the animated short film section would be appropriate, since it was released along with "Under the Hood." Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to have Under the Hood listed, but to omit Tales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt Kid (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been "absorbed" by Watchmen, since the Ultimate Cut of that film includes TotBF in its entirety.76.97.82.9 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Should creator-owned titles be excluded?

This is a follow-up to the discussion of The Spirit. That was excluded from the list on the grounds that the title character and the relevant setting were not owned by DC. As further research has turned up, several other properties listed here do not actually belong to DC but rather to the properties' creators, although DC did originally publish them unlike The Spirit. The works in question are the RED duology (owned by Warren Ellis), Road to Perdition (owned by Max Allan Collins), A History of Violence (owned by John Wagner), Stardust (owned by Neil Gaiman), and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (owned by Alan Moore). The question is: Should these films be excluded, as they are not based on properties that actually belong to DC? The same question can be extended to Kingsman and the Kick-Ass films in the Marvel list (both owned by Mark Millar).76.97.82.9 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think they should be included if DC Entertainment is involved in production, as a studio or distribution, or something. You'll see in a lot of those films a DC logo or something in the credits, even the posters. Both RED and RED 2 feature a DC Logo in their credit box on their posters. Pretty sure I saw a DC credit during the actual credit rolls. I think for a lot of things, DC and Marvel keep film/TV rights temporarily as part of the creator-owned publication contracts. Such a case would be The Preacher, which is not owned by DC/Vertigo, but they retained film/TV rights until they let them go/the creator won them back.

There is also the simple idea that...anything anything based on material published by DC Comics, should be on a list about films based on DC Comics. So whether or not they are owned by DC, it was published by DC, and it is a "DC Comic" || Tako (bother me) || 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Grntlemen was creator-owned by Alan Moore and published through All-American comics, a division of WildStorm, PRIOR to the Wildstorm buyout and absorption by DC. Moore, sternly opposed to working with DC again, pulled League and began to publish it independently, and still does today. It could be argued that it does not belong on this list. As with the case of The Fountain, it's apparent a great deal more though and.research should be done before these pages were finalized.

As for RED, it is also creator-owned. I would argue that creator owned titles in imprints don't belong on pages based on marvel or DC comics at all. As for DC Entertainment's involvement in the film, that is irrelevant. Marvel entertainment was involved with the production of such animated series as Transformers, G.I.Joe, Gem and the Holograms, RoboCop, Muppet Babies, and Biker Mice from Mars. Should those be listed under series based on marvel comics? Roy Thomas created the character of Red Sonja for Marvel, and reimagined and defined Conan the Barbarian for his comics at Marvel, and they were even the catalyst for the Conan films and several of the creative forces behind the comics were in the early creative development of the films'. Why are they not listed as creator own titles based on marvel comics? The Howard estate owns the copyright, but marvel undeniably reinvented the pulp Conan and the version pop culture is familiar with is theirs. And Red Sonja would not even exist. But since unlike Marvel's Thor or Dracula, they are not public domain, they are not included. Very silly whe one actually uses some critical thinking. Therefore, creator owned titles such as RED, A History of Violence, and Road to Perdition have no grounds or claim within reason as reflected by the rules that seem to govern these pages to be included. It makes no sense to.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen must be not removed from this list, it´s a source material published by Wildstorm, a brand for authoral projects. This is a list for a movies based on comics; what's the problem with its inclusion?OscarFercho (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sir, please bare with me. The important thing to understand is the timing of these events and circumstances. I already explained in my previous post. But don't take my word for it, I invite you to use this very wiki and any other internet sources you may need to learn the truth of my words. I reiterate: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is creator owned by Alan Moore, published through the imprint company All-American comics. All-America comics was owned by Woldstorm at the time that they operated as an independent company. But when Wildstorm was purchased by DC comics, Moore published and continues to publish all remaining League of Extradinary Gentlemen comics independently from Wildstorm. Ergo, DC has in fact never published a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comic themselves. Please look this up to confirm for yourself so that all the misinformation on the page can be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B02B:DA37:DDEB:ABF6:B957:3CD1 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with your explanation, but we, both, needed more opinions, not only our discussion. Please wait to a more consensous.OscarFercho (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well how do we get more people involved? Really opinion shouldn't ever enter it, it should only be facts. The facts support what I have said about League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Fountain, and while we're at it, the TV comedy film Return to the Batcave should not be on here at all as it is about the actors from the 66 Batman series, not Batman. It's inclusion is farcical. This wiki is a collection of facts. It is an encyclopedia, and it's founding was that anyone with the facts and the proof to back then could edit it for the benefit of others. You are, to put it bluntly, subverting that. I'd love if there was a consensus involved, but right now it's just you and me. And we both have the same right to this page and what it stands for. So in the interim, why is your "opinion" what gets to stand? It is unfair, and contradictory of the point of a user contributed wiki if one man takes in upon himself to be vigilante of the page, in defiance of presented facts. Please tell me you understand this and please consider how what you are doing is unfair. You cannot monopolize this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:583:701:8EA0:2D4A:C1A7:6EC3:897D (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't monopolize this theme, and please see on WP:EQ before talk about Me of that form. This not only my opinion, or yours. Please register to make your presence more easy. @TriiipleThreat:, @Favre1fan93:, @DilatoryRevolution:, @Osubuckeyeguy:, @MarkoPhoenix:, you are invited to this talk.OscarFercho (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely my point is that this is not only my opinion or yours, or anyone's. Opinion is irrelevant in a matter of legitimate fact and history. I'm simply perplexed that if the justification for my edits are easily verifiable to you why you feel the need to revert them. I have visited the etiquette page as suggested, and look friend, contrary to any tone or implication you may feel I am dealing in, I am not here to fight you. I'm here to fight misinformation. I did not intent to leave you feeling slighted. If I seem stubborn, it is to reflect the unflinching nature of reality. Water is H2O. That is a compound of one hydrogen atom & 2 oxygen atoms. If the Wikipedia article on water has those figures irraneously reversed, would someone have to wait for a council of opinion before it was corrected? Please forgive me sincerely if I appear too forthwith in my attempts to have these errors corrected. I'm new to this and never actually intended to start, and it appears I misunderstood how this encyclopedia operated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.170.101 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

new movies

some add Shazam 2016

Sandman  2016

Wonder Woman 2017

Greenlantern-flash crossover 2017

Man of steel 2 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.240.59 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

ok, i made a table for the box office for the DC movies, now could anyone make a table for the reception, it`s midnight where I sleep and i am gonna go to sleep so for the next 12 hours if no one makes a table then i will do it in the morning. (User:Poroboros) — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ok nevermind, I made it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poroboros (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Shazam and SUicide Squad movie

I´d just like to remind the people that the Suicide Squad and Shazam movies HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. so why the hell can´t we put them in the table under the announced part??? and dont give me that "it didnt even start development" crap, on marvels movie page, 9 movies have been put in the table and every single one hasnt even started development. hell the script for 3 movies hasnt even been written. I want a simple explanation that makes sense. Poroboros

Neither film have been announced. We have potential and/or official parts of the films announced, but the actual films have not been announced. If you say both are announced, then that allows us to say any and all other "potential" projects DC may be considering can be added to the table. That is not correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not true, Suicide Squad project it's not confirmed, a simple search on internet results on no concrets informations.OscarFercho (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Then what is this: http://batman-news.com/2014/09/19/warner-bros-david-ayer-suicide-squad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poroboros (talk • contribs) 07:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A report on a report that a director is being considered for the project. NOT at all a confirmation. Simply reading the source will tell you that, as it is never said in the source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, again, has right, and there's not any official announcement.OscarFercho (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OH COME ON

Do you really had to revert every single note that I aded???? Poroboros (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not useful at all on this page. That's what the film's article is for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User Favre1fan93 has right, this is not a forum for every aparently notice.OscarFercho (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Superman Movies of Alexander Salkind

The production companies listed for Superman, Superman II, Superman III and Supergirl all indicate Warner Bros. This is not true. WB only acted as the distributor of the Superman films, and didn't have anything to do with Supergirl. (and who could blame them?) WB sold the Superman movie rights to Alexander Salkind back in the 70's, and it was he who produced those movies through various companies. The production companies for Superman: The Quest for Peace already indicated the correct company, so I left it alone. The rest have been corrected. The production companies listed on each of these films' individual pages were also already correct. Wyldstaar (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Superman and Batman between 2016 and 2020

It has been confirmed that standalone Batman and Superman movies will come out between 2016 and 2020. so can it be added under the table like before??? here is the link for the sauce: http://www.slashfilm.com/new-batman-movie-superman-2020/, you know what I will jut add it. Poroboros (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been determined, info should not be placed here. Additionally, that is a very loose confirmation, as we have no date, or even a year, telling us that a film is coming. Just that they are intended to possibly come out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 has right, this is not place for speculation with unconcrete information. For this, there are articles of Batman films and Superman films.OscarFercho (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandman movie

I would like to request Sandman to be added to the vertigo movies. Joseph Gordon Levitt talked in august with IGN about the movie and he confirmed the movie is being developed for a yet unknown release. Even Neil Gaiman had an interview with Newsarama on october 21, and he confirmed the movie is being developed and that it is going to be part of a Vertigo slate movies. here is the source:

• http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/25/joseph-gordon-levitt-gives-an-update-on-the-sandman-movie
• http://www.newsarama.com/22513-dc-to-rebrand-vertigo-in-2015-gaiman-says-sandman-movie-part-of-a-vertigo-slate-of-films.html

Poroboros (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's not any official announcement of Warner; we can't speculate with a "possible" movie.OscarFercho (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove stamp day

I say stamp day for superman should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What reason? Please wait to consensous before remove any film included.OscarFercho (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DC animated shared universe

So, If you go to the JL War WIkipedia page, it says that JUstice League war started the DC animated shared universe. Also, that all future movies will be based on the new 52 stories. Where should I go to request the making of a wikipedia page?? also, here is the source: http://screenrant.com/wb-shared-animated-universe-new-52/ Poroboros (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is a list of all DC based movies, not place for that distinction.OscarFercho (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time Note

Can someone please think of something to be written on the NOTE segment for "JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time". For every animated movie there is something written, either a based on, loosely based or inspired by. But I cant find anything to write there and my OCD is killing me because it is the only empty segment on the whole table. Please, someone.Poroboros (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for the empty NOTE parts on the film table

I request for some information to be added on the NOTE parts. In the animated films table there are notes like "Based on (some graphic novel)" or sequel to that movie. I mean, its just stupid for them to be empty all the time. At least like The Dark Knight = Sequel to 2005s Batman Begins; The Dark Knight Rises =Sequel to 2008s The Dark Knight, Loosely based on the Knight Fall and No Mans Land crossover stories. I combined the empty rows to one and it got reverted and the guy told me "put some info in the rows", but everityme I put something it gets deleted. Like what the hell do you want?!??! Poroboros (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Information unecessary and redundant, V for Vendetta it's obviously based on the graphic novel of the same name. The cells only it's there for basic single notes, not for an excess of redundat information.OscarFercho (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Vertigo Distinction?

There seems to be a right mess of confusion on this page about what constitutes a Vertigo title and what doesn't. V for Vendetta was a 10-issue maxi series published in full by DC comics under their main banner, like Watchmen, before Vertigo existed. Nearly a decade later it was collected as a trade paperback and published under the Vertigo imprint. A History of Violence was published in full by Paradox Press and was also collected as a trade paperback under Vertigo yet it remains under Paradox Press. So why is V under Vertigo? Please correct this.

Also, Constantine and The Losers were titles that moved to Vertigo but originated under the DC banner, and all titles have since returned to the DC banner as Vertigo was absorbed. Just Like Swamp-Thing and Jonah Hex, both of which spend a decade or more under Vertigo or, but whose films remain classified as DC and not Vertigo.

The only films that should be classified as based on a Vertigo property are creator owned comic based films that were originally published under the Vertigo imprint and never began as and therefore never re/integrated into the DC proper canon; meaning The Fountain and Stardust.

It's only logical that these corrections be made for the sake of the confusion it must cause so many readers of this page.

Also, as Vertigo is just an imprint of DC specifying Mature readers, and only two titles realistically qualify for it's distinction in film, it may be simpler just to integrate all of them into the main body of DC films and in the "Notes" header, indicate the Vertigo publication. After all, the TV shows page doesn't separate Vertigo based series from the main body of work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.170.101 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Vertigo section imprint it's to shown the clear distinction of this source material isn't necessary a DC banner material.OscarFercho (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so are we going to remove those Non Vertigo films from the section then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.170.101 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We've got to move V for Vendetta, Constantine, and The Losers to the standard DC movies; or move Swamp-Thing, The Return of Swamp-Thing, Jonah Hex, and a History of Violence to Vertigo under the flimsy logic that has left the other titles there. But there cannot be contradictory placement for books under identical circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.170.101 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I want another opinion before any sense change.OscarFercho (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your point it's good and a solid argue, but only we need more consensous, we can't only with our opinions. Patience, please, as Master Yoda said; in fact, I'm agree with your reasoning.OscarFercho (talk)

And please, register as user.OscarFercho (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The user in question brought this issue to my attention. I asked for a few sources to back his arguments, and everything he mentions seems to be in order and make sense. In particular:

• This website cites the original publishing of V for Vendetta by DC, not Vertigo. This makes sense as Vertigo didn't exist in 1988 when "V" was first published. (This detail should be mentioned in the article for V for Vendetta in some fashion as well.) The material was only passed to a different label later on.

• The same website also backs his arguments regarding The Fountain.

• The articles on Swamp Thing, John Constantine, The Losers and Jonah Hex seem to be properly categorized and in conflict with the information on this page. Some reworking needs to be done in the appropriate section and see if we're going for the label of the movie or the original source materials.

• Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt feels out of place in the current listing, as it is based on a particular adaptation of DC Comics material. We should discuss how to handle this case.

Thus, I'm convinced this user is making good points regarding this article's content, and his good faith edits deserve due consideration. We should encourage this kind of contribution to Wikipedia. — LucasVB | Talk 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Your point it's very clear and logic and make Me sense. How do you propose to reorder these materials?OscarFercho (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt, for now, I think it's a movie that needs a miscelaneous or docummentaries section. What you think?OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I registered as you suggested. I would say the best thing to do would be to move V for Vendetta to DC; and move Constantine and The Losers there too, but in the notes indicate that they spent time under the Vertigo imprint. Also indicate this Vertigo connection in the notes for Swamp-Thing, Return of Swamp-Thing, and Jonah Hex. Then under the Vertigo section, leave The Fountain and Stardust. Also, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen should be in it's own separate imprint header for America's Best Comics, not Wildstorm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallvilleHigh (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Before all, thaks for register. I'm ok wit your propose, except with The Fountain, that it's not a movie based on a comic, was a script previously published as comic, but not a comic in fact. Its inclusion not proceding.OscarFercho (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but if you insist on the exclusion of The Fountain, then I must insist on the exclusion of Stardust. It is a novel written by Gaiman, not a comic book. Even the magazine version published by Vertigo was still novel text in magazine pages, not a comic book. A Gaiman had it published less than a year later in standard form through Penguin books. Gaiman also retains the copyright, as it was never a DC/Vertigo property. The difference between The Fountain and Stardust is, besides the fact that The Fountain was published as an actual comic book and Stardust never has been, is that The Fountain's film rights lay with DC Comics' parent company Warner Bros, while Neil Gaiman sold the rights to Stardust to Paramount. By the logic that it was not intended to be a comic, Stardust has much more reason to be left out than The Fountain. Please consider this.SmallvilleHigh (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay, Stardust must be out too of this list. I totally agree to reflects only original material from comics, as rule of these lists. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed Stardust movie. What's next according to the new criteria? @LucasVB:, please, can bring us your opinion?OscarFercho (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would just reiterate my previous comment about V not being a Vertigo title, and that all the actual Vertigo titles that began as DC and are currently DC should be intergrated, but with Vertigo specicified in the notes; this would include Swamp-Thing films and Jonah Hex films.SmallvilleHigh (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out before League of Extradinary Gentlemen was published in a separate imprint of America's Best comics, so it should have time own section. Actually, since Alan Moore owns the propert it is currently published by Knockabout comics, and is not owned by DC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockabout_Comics It's seems a case like Conan, Red Sonja, & Transformers at Marvel, in that it is owned by it's copyright holder and published elsewhere after DC/Marvel, and doesn't have basis for inclusion if those don't.

Okay, I'm also agree with this point. Then, I think these titles must be removed.OscarFercho (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's appreciated. Glad my research is helping sort the page out and that we're making progress.SmallvilleHigh (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I see you removed V from Veryigo but did not ad it to DC, now it's missing altogether; sorry if there was a miscommunication, but please read back to earlier comments to clarify. Here's the proof again just in case http://www.comicvine.com/v-for-vendetta/4050-4034/SmallvilleHigh (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Remember, all this changes you can do it. This it's a work for consensous an collaboration. All participations on good faith and reasonable are welcome.OscarFercho (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to step on anymore toes so I thought I'd leave it to the professionals. But at your suggestion I gave it a shot and made the other discussed changes to the Vertigo titles that started as DC and are back at DC now after the New52 event.SmallvilleHigh (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Wait to more opinions for this actual status.OscarFercho (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood, I've got to log off but will be back in the morning.SmallvilleHigh (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd to point out that the film Constantine is based on the character John Constantine created by Alan Moore, but the comic he starred in, Hellblazer, was not actually written by Alan Moore at any point. He created the character in a Swamp Thing comic. Directlydisturbed (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. That's true, I removed the name of Moore, only it's a film based on Hellblazer title.OscarFercho (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Swamp Thing was not a Vertigo title at the time the two movies were released. Vertigo did not become a DC imprint until 1993. Wyldstaar (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@DoctorHver: The Vertigo and DC distinction was previously discussed here.OscarFercho (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Gen13 animated film was located in live-action section

The unreleased Gen13 animated film is currently located under the DC Imprint sub-section, under the Live-Action films header. I've tried to move this Gen13 movie from the Live-Action section into the Animated section, but another wikipedia contributor, OscarFercho, keeps insisting it should remain. Please advise.Goldeneyed (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Gen13 it's a sole movie, based on an DC imprint comic. The fact that this movie it's the only one is the reason for its inclusion on the movie imprints section.OscarFercho (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing the fact that Gen13 is part of a DC Imprint. Where is it written in the guidelines, that if there is only one movie of its kind (animated and part of an imprint), that it should be included in the imprint section of the live-action category? Including it here is false and misleading.Goldeneyed (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no guideline, but there's not reason too for a subsection for a sole movie, or for its nature of animated film. The additional info about its unreleased status on the US its only that, a note.OscarFercho (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is no guideline for that then, Gen13 should be put in the proper section, under animated films, and not live-action. You can't just lump stuff together unreasonably because you feel there's no need for a sub-section for a sole movie. I've seen you undo an edit like this on the Marvel films page too. Please do not make lump movies together in the wrong section just because you think there is no need for a separate sub-section.Goldeneyed (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What edit on the Marvel films list? Gen13 its the only case of an animated movie based on an imprint. That's my rationale.OscarFercho (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You wanted to keep Big Hero 6 in the same section as all the other animated direct to video films. Which in the end, there is nothing really wrong with that because Big Hero 6 is an animated movie. So both ways would be correct. However, regarding the Gen13 case, it is NOT a LIVE-ACTION movie. It does not belong in the section where it is located. Repeating it's the only case of an animated movie based on an imprint and then lumping it with live-action movies makes no sense. You are just wrong, but seem to always think your rationale is better.Goldeneyed (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I undestand, with Big Hero 6 there's no have any problem, its theatrically release its clearly mentioned, but all that isn't my edit, it case is consensous of users. In this case, what's your proposal with Gen13 movie?, only one sole subsection for this? Remember, when this was released wasn't any connection yet with DC Comics, it is an isolated case.OscarFercho (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@LucasVB: can you bring your opinion? OscarFercho (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to treat this would be to make an imprints subheading under the animated films main heading. I never saw an issue before, but having live-action and animation completely separated may be a good thing. Fortunately, we don't have a live-action/animation hybrid film to deal with. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the collaboration, to both.OscarFercho (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The killing joke

Batman the killing joke is getting a limited theatrical release so that should be added on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.243.240 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled films

We now have a canceled film section, although it seems to be limited to as far back as 2008 (Superman Lives came quite far, and we're not even including that). Do we really need a bloated description of why every film was been canceled/stalled? This isn't the case for the TV article. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could shorten the descriptions to bare bones information. Filmmakers that were/would have been involved, and when the project was cancelled (and maybe for what reason). Easily citable and not space consuming. -RM (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's totally truth. Agree.OscarFercho (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

We need a section of cancelled or inactive projects in a list of released or officially announced films? I Think this is not place for projects no realized or in the limbo, that induces to a confussion.

@Anythingspossibleforapossible: please, you invited to talk.OscarFercho (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This section came about from a discussion on Talk:DC Extended Universe. For consistency, please comment over there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and in that talk page I wrote too, but affects this list.OscarFercho (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with nothing there. But like I said, there's something similar on List of television series based on DC Comics, so for consistency it could be like that. That page didn't have a description of why they didn't go anywhere, and I'm fine with that. Although they could do with sources. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it's a bad idea. Are we going to list every sequel attempt at Superman, Batman, even Green Lantern? It will just be utterly ridiculous. At the moment it just seems like favourites are being added, which is fine, but it should include other canceled films. But I'd like to hear from others what they think. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's true, on the List of television series based on DC Comics there is a several shows attempted, or worst, in heading "unproduced". What's the object to included it? Just induce to a confussion.OscarFercho (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

While not the place to really discuss this, but the "Unproduced series" on the tv series list are fine, because those were all (presumably) announced as being in development "officially" by networks but never got to a pilot stage. Versus the films listed here, were never announced as being in development "officially". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with the criteria for List of films from comics under the consensous we reached. I'm agree with the Lists of TV adaptations of comics is a completely different talk.OscarFercho (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Untitled Batman/Untitled Superman Films

Untitled Batman Film in Pre-Production, and Untitled Superman Project in Active-Develepnent. "Cyborg" and "Green Lantern Corps" do not have release dates according to Box Office Mojo, including "The Flash", "Auqaman", and so on. The only two that do are "Wonder Woman", and Justice League" for upcoming films. BixbyAven (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyborg, Green Lantern Corps were official announced months ago; new Batman film and Man of Steel sequel are't official announced by Warner.OscarFercho (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Green Lantern and Cyborg WERE announced, but what is their current status? For that you have to check IMDb, or Box Office Mojo (who are the same company). They are used for all official release dates in the film industry. Batman Standalone is officially announced, and is currently in pre-production. Superman recently was also announced. These are facts. BixbyAven (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a mistake, the new Batman film or the new Superman film aren't official announcement yet, as the case of Cyborg and Green Lantern Corps. Check your source and guidelines, IMDb isn't a reliable source.13:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have listed more sources other than "IMDb" for Untitled Batman for being officially in development. It has been publicly noted that WB has a Batman film in production, directly from WB themselves. The Batman film is even in more of a production than Green Lantern or Cyborg, that are also in development BixbyAven (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As for IMDb, Wiki uses Box Office Mojo as a source for Box Office information. Box Office Mojo is an IMDb company BixbyAven (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The IMDb and BOM are reliable sources for released projects, not for unnanounced films. Can you bring the official announcement of release from Warner?OscarFercho (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo shows that GLC and Cyborg don't have release dates. "Announcement of release "? These films have not been released yet. Proof of Ben Affleck's Batman film in production is all over the internet. It has been officially announced! Where are you getting your sources from? BixbyAven (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Same, where's the official announcement of release from Warner? They addmited the active development, but there's not yet an official announcement of release. What's the problem for wait to an official announcement?OscarFercho (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't want to list the Batman film becouse it doesn't have a release date? If you lookup the release dates for Shazam, Green Lantern, or Cyborg, you'll notice that WB has removed them, but they are still in development. So to not have Batman there, and leave the rest, doesn't make a lot of sense BixbyAven (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Those movies were officially announced since 2014, a new Batman film not yet, what's the problem with wait an official announcement of Warner?OscarFercho (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Those movies are outdated, not officially cancelled or delayed.OscarFercho (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"A sense change"? "Meanwhile it's outdated, there's not an official statement of modified", that wouldn't happen. Warner Bros release dates are all public anyways. And you are not making a lot of sense. And an untitled Batman film was officially announced by Warner Bros, and the director. It is currently in pre-production. Are you from a different country? BixbyAven (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, dont' be sarcastic. We know is a film in active development, like a Booster Gold film, but there's not an official announcement of release yet. See the last adding of Favre1fan93, that's the better way.OscarFercho (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. My points are valid BixbyAven (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"We know is a film"? Something is wrong here. Though, Favre at least helped BixbyAven (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for my mistakes writing, but user Favre has the point. Are You agree?OscarFercho (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

'Ok, sorry for my mistakes in writing, but user Favre has a valid argument. Do you agree?' —sure BixbyAven (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Batman Killing Joke R Rating

Is the film's R-rating appropriate to include? We do not include film ratings anywhere else on the page (or really anywhere on Wikipedia, barring a few exceptions). Is this information really necessary? -RM (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think is a relevant information about the film, but if you think isn't, I don't see any problem.OscarFercho (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Trivial and per WP:FILMRATING. Doesn't need a mention here at least. If there is any notable, relevant rating info (as allowed by FILMRATING), that can be at the film's article proper. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I remove. Tks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorting problem

I tried sorting the box office table by all three box office columns, but none of them sort correctly. Is there a way to correct them? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films based on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151011192911/http://nycc15.mapyourshow.com/6_0/sessions/session-details.cfm?ScheduleID=685 to http://nycc15.mapyourshow.com/6_0/sessions/session-details.cfm?ScheduleID=685

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Batman and Harley Quinn

Batman and Harley Quinn is getting a one day theatrical release so someone should add that to the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.218.101 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

LEGO?

I am confused about this issue, please explain it me captain User:OscarFercho. I don't know why The Lego Movie is listed in the reception sections. This isn't a flat-out DC movie. There are Star Wars, TMNT characters, Milhouse from the Simpsons, to name a few. The Lego Movie isn't listed in the reception section of Star Wars because its not part of the franchise. The Lego Movie is not an essential DC movie, The Lego Batman Movie i am totally cool with that. Also I don't get why you removed Constatine from the DC reception section, it is a DC movie.Xtremeroller (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts User:Anythingspossibleforapossible, User:Favre1fan93? I didn't included The Lego Movie that User:Xtremeroller wants remove. His argue make me sense, but we can't do it without consense.OscarFercho (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't't say why you removed Constantine from the reception section. It is a DC movie and not an imprint. Xtremeroller (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Really I didn't noted 'til now, That was my mistake deleted your adding, and is missing V for Vendetta, I will added.OscarFercho (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Lego Movie is not a DC film, and shouldn't be listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, we have a first consensous of three, I think can remove.OscarFercho (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@OscarFercho: Consensus is not a vote. Also in matters like this where it is absolutely clear that the Lego Movie shouldn't have been on the list, a consensus doesn't need to be formed to remove it. It can just happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that, meanwhile expect for more opinions, but I removed it.OscarFercho (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And Scooby-Doo Meets Batman? It's on the subsection of Episodes as films on the animated movies section, it's place is on this list?OscarFercho (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that The Lego Movie shouldn't be in the reception list, as has been realised. As for Scooby-Doo Meets Batman, this is the first I've heard of it being in the other section. It does have Batman, but he's just a guest. And there's really no such thing as "Scooby-Doo Meet Batman", that's just something that Warner Home Video was trying to promote both episodes together in its release, the same with Scooby-Doo Meets the Harlem Globetrotters. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think same about Scooby-Doo Meets Batman, it place it's not on this list. User:Favre1fan93, your thoughts about this movie? Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Xtremeroller, your thought about Scooby-Doo Meet Batman too, please.OscarFercho (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Green Lantern Corps and Cyborg films

We need to include, for now, the projects of Green Lantern (former title) and Cyborg in this list? The original slate an reference of Warner/DC is from 2014 year and there's no updates 'til now, even on the past SDCC.OscarFercho (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xtremeroller:@Prefall:@Favre1fan93:

Any non-dated films should probably be removed from this list. Since WB has been unwilling to commit to dates for their DCEU films (see this discussion), that means Shazam, Cyborg and Green Lantern Corps should not be listed yet. Prefall 01:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I think same, perhaps must be remove for now, which no means or imply a cancel of these projects.OscarFercho (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingspossibleforapossible: your thougth?OscarFercho (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@OscarFercho: I don't know what's your problem with my edits on this page. These movies don't come out in 3 years. Of course not much is going to be coming out. They have confirmed release dates, and I have said this time and time again. Wait until WB or DC have announced that those movies have been shelved, but they haven't it's still on track for 2020.Xtremeroller (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

These films are obviously trying to work themselves out (The Flash lost its director and now is struggling). I agree with Xtremeroller that once films get announced it takes a while for the next announcement, but at the same time it can be more than that. The 3 films in doubt should probably not be there because they don't sound like solid commitments. The same with The Batman. Oh, yes, DC and WB want it made, but there's nothing really going on with it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Batman is a movie that has no release date, Cyborg and Green Lantern have release dates. It's 2017, you guys seem to be expecting a lot of information for movies that don't come out in 3 years. At Comic-Con there were no annoucements for those movies, their primary focus was Justice League, a movie that comes out in 4 months. Maybe after Justice League comes out there will be something.Xtremeroller (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with nobody, but yes, I expect for any update and a lot of information, in the moment that get, Shazam has now director asigned, but there's no was update about Green Lantern Corps or Cyborg. This not imply that I consider like "cancelled" films, it's only wait news from these projects.OscarFercho (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There are several projects more in works, like Nightwing, Batgirl, Suicide Squad 2, Justice League Dark, even with directors attached, but not for that, for the moment, include in the list.OscarFercho (talk)

You don't make much sense. The difference with those movies is that they don't have release dates and Green Lantern and Cyborg do have release dates and are on track for those dates. Unless WB or DC have announced something else, leave as is! Xtremeroller (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The slate that originally dated these projecs it's from 2014, and there's no update, only several changes, like the title of Green Lantern to Green Lantern Corps, The Flash to Flaspoint and its delayed, same case of Justice Leage 2. My point is, what's the problem with wait for any updates? I'm sure that soon we have notices.OscarFercho (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

These films have release dates scheduled for 2020. They aren't like the Flash which was pulled off its schedule. They're still on track for 2020, the movies don't come out for 3 years. Of course not a lot of stuff is coming out. And what's your with just waiting for any announcements regarding those movies.Xtremeroller (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish wait for new announcement to update the status of the projects, the original slate it's completely outdated. The esque of DC Extended Universe is very accurate for this.OscarFercho (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

On the sources that I provided in which you clearly didn't read, they still have them listed for 2020. They are still on the table and scheduled for those dates unless WB or DC have said something otherwise. Xtremeroller (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read, it's from ScreenRant, that's not a primary source.OscarFercho (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is our better source 'til the moment http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/shazam-is-next-dc-movie-shoot-1022821, which does not mentions Green Lantern or Cyborg.OscarFercho (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's talking about a movie that comes in two years will start production next year. Why would it be mentioned on that article piece. Again and again, these god damn movies are on track for 2020, with release dates set in April 3, 2020 and July 24, 2020. Until Warner Bros. or DC announce something leave as is! Xtremeroller (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there anybody agree or disagree with a temporary remove of Green Lantern Corps and Cyborg, or Shazam, from this list?OscarFercho (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that removal. I would prefer listing all the upcoming films here, including the two 2020 ones and all the films that are without release dates. Of course, this is assuming all of them can be properly referenced. Why should other articles be able to mention, say, the film Justice League Dark (DC Extended Universe#Justice League Dark, Justice League Dark#Film, Guillermo del Toro filmography) but this list should not? Adding all films would be consistent with all filmography lists that contain "TBA" release dates. This includes List of Walt Disney Pictures films, which has quite a lot of upcoming films, with and without release dates, at the end of the list. All the upcoming films in the Disney list are properly referenced, if I'm not mistaken. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What and when was the last update of the Warner/DC slate?OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Does any recent news article count? If not, what kind of update would you like? For instance, this December 1, 2017 article lists quite a few movies that are still on their current slate (that is, they were not shelved): http://uproxx.com/hitfix/warner-dc-film-slate-update/ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But dates, that's not an official statement of Warner, was only a series of cards.OscarFercho (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Cyborg is scheduled for April 3, 2020[1][2][3] and Green Lantern Corps is scheduled for July 24, 2020[4][5][6][7]. These two films are not currently in the list.

I did not find dates for the other films. That website, although it is just a series of cards, is a recent confirmation that the films are still in the making and were not cancelled. If you'd like, I can find other websites that confirm that these films are in production, only without release dates. As I said above (although others might disagree with me), I support adding all films that can be properly referenced in the list, with or without released dates, for the reasons given above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem with wait an new official update from the studio? I know and understand that these projects are still in development, but there's no recent update.OscarFercho (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you're asking, I'll basically repeat something I said above. In my opinion, the problem is that we are apparently singling out this article, if we decide that it should contain an incomplete list of films while other articles seem to be free to contain a complete list of films, including all the upcoming ones. For example, this list does not currently contain the upcoming live-action film Justice League Dark, but these other pages have it: DC Extended Universe#Justice League Dark, Justice League Dark#Film, Guillermo del Toro filmography. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And that what? In this list it's only include confirmed and scheduled films.OscarFercho (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That does not seem right: Green Lantern Corps and Cyborg are confirmed and scheduled, although all the others are just confirmed but not scheduled, as per the references that are found in the other articles. Anyway, why single out this page and have an incomplete list here? If Wikipedia had some rule not to include "TBA" films in any article whatsoever for some reason, I would understand, at least this would be consistent. I just don't like singling out this one, because it means people would necessarily have to peruse the other articles to find out about the upcoming films, which I'd wager is information likely to be searched nowadays. This article is currently less useful than it could be. In my opinion, one additional problem is that having an incomplete list reflects poorly on the perceived quality of the list, as if we didn't go to the trouble of updating it because we forgot, as I'm not sure it would seem obvious to everyone that the list is incomplete on purpose. Because if you compare this list with other articles, the other articles mention the upcoming films, with references, and this list does not mention them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And Guillermo del Toro is not anymore involved in Justice League Dark.OscarFercho (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that Guillermo del Toro is not anymore involved in Justice League Dark. Unfortunately, Justice League Dark#Film still says he is involved with it and the film is listed at the end of Guillermo del Toro filmography, so apparently both articles need to be updated. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a talk between two, I think we need more opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Order of list

DoctorHver The order of the article is not chronological. The main movies listed, in first order, are the feature films.OscarFercho (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Prior to Current stable of films the first appearing Live-action films in theaters were film serials. So placing the serial first are only logical. Unless there is evident that these serial never appeared in theaters then I would be fine with them not being listed before the current stable of theatrical features.DoctorHver (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Animated shorts

However there is probably one split I think we can agree Fleischer/Famous Superman shorts should not be lumped together with later DTV shorts from WBA. Since its general consensus cross Wikipedia, on List of Disney animated shorts on Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1970–present and miscellaneous) For example. Also since we are splitting the Live-action section into theatricals vs TV films. Then the same should apply for the Animation section, makes for less confusing read.DoctorHver (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DCEU

A colour coded key can be put in place to stop repeating notes and create a better way of handling interconnected films. This can also be done on the similar marvel page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:464E:7400:54CD:1A25:B5D9:F490 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

DC Super Heroes vs. Eagle Talon

I think this film should be added, even if it was only released in Japan. It's an animated film (and a crossover between DC heroes and the anime Eagle Talon that premiered in Japan on October 21, 2017. It has an Anime News Network entry, an IMDb entry, an official website, and some info can be found on Eagle Talon's Japanese Wikipedia article.--JFP (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Continuity

Please see this revision, specifically the table of live-action films.

Today I added a "Continuity" column in the live-action table, much like how the animated films table (you know, the one located further down the page) has the same column too.

But my edits were reverted. If possible, I request restoring my edits and therefore allowing the live-action films table to have a "Continuity" column. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is only a list, that's too much information.OscarFercho (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Then would you delete all mentions of "spin-off", "sequel", "universe", "continuity" from the list, including the continuity from the animated films?

I noticed something odd. In the current revision (without the "Continuity" column), the first 3 DCEU films have this information in the "Notes": "First installment on the so-called DCEU" / "Second installment on the so-called DCEU" / "Third installment on the so-called DCEU". The other five films of the DCEU don't have that info, but they are from the DC Films and there's a note saying "Live-action feature films produced by DC Films are set within the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) unless otherwise noted." Well, that's a roundabout way to inform our readers that we're listing eight DCEU films in total. Either the continuity is important or it isn't. Not to mention that it still says that Supergirl is a spin-off from Superman.

From your comment, it sounds like we should delete all mentions of continuity, doesn't it? But then I'd disagree. Let's keep the continuity, it's really basic information to say which films are connected to which. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the three first DCEU films aren't produced by a DC Films brand. Request thoughts of more users.OscarFercho (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: @MarkoPhoenix: can you give us your thoughts?OscarFercho (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Entire continuity column is WP:INU info and should not be included. Subsequently, the animated table's column should be removed and reformatted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I completely disagree. You linked to WP:INU, a guideline about describing the narrative from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The "Continuity" column is not written like that at all; it is written from a real-world perspective. This applies both to the animated films table and the live-action film table.

For instance, the "Continuity" column in the animated films table mentions that nine films are set in the DCAMU, much like the live action film table still mentions (even without a "Continuity" column) that eight films are set in the DCEU.

Just to illustrate... If we decided to write this somewhere, I believe it would be a violation of WP:INU: "Hal Jordan was unable to witness the collective hallucinations because he was busy doing something, so he was replaced by John Stewart." (Justice League Dark) It sounds like the character is real.

By all means feel free to talk about it or criticize the idea, but that guideline simply does not apply. If you disagree with that, please point out exactly which part applies to the "Continuity" column. Feel free to let me know if the "Continuity" column violates any other policy or guideline, which I currently believe is not the case. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the guideline, and this is only a list.OscarFercho (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And the Animated films list must be simplified according to that guidelines.OscarFercho (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

According to what guideline? Surely not WP:INU; I already commented about it above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's explained. More thoughts?OscarFercho (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring my answer above. I asked a few questions. You replied "Well, it's explained. More thoughts?" directly below one of my currently unanswered questions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Need more thoughts, not only my opinion. Thanks to Favre1fan93.OscarFercho (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oscar, would you like to choose one of these options? In your opinion, should the article:

A- have no mentions of universes like DCEU, DCAMU, DCAU, sequels and spin-offs whatsoever

B- list some of those items and omit some, or

C- list all instances of these items whenever possible.

Sure other people can weigh in, but I'd like to have the chance to discuss your opinions. As far as I see, it's not clear what you expect to be see on the article. You're the one who reverted my addition of a "Continuity" column in the live action film table. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't choose, It's not only my thought, but there's the commentary of Favre1fan93. Need more opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply asking for your thoughts so that we may continue this discussion. If everyone that comes here says "I can't choose, It's not only my thought" then we are not going anywhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This list no need columns of continuity, that's my thought.OscarFercho (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you think it's a good idea to remove all the continuity information from the article, for example by completely deleting the information that some films are set in the DCEU, the DCAMU or the DCAU? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, yes, but need more opinions.OscarFercho (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. Alright, I'm fine with waiting for more opinions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Constantine: City of Demons apparently not set in Arrowverse

The entry for this needs to be corrected. The chart shows it as part of the Arrowverse, but it has been confirmed that the film is actually set in another continuity, specifically that of the animated film Justice League Dark. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Thank you for adressed the mistake. Done.OscarFercho (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

DCEU

I removed the comment that the movies were all set in DCEU unless otherwise noted since only 5 (Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Justice league) of them are (plus the ones coming up) and there were no notes on anything saying they weren't DCEU. --Stevehim (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

- Again, to clarify...if you want the page to have a comment before the chart saying 'All films are in DCEU unless otherwise specified,' then you need to go to each movie not in the DCEU (most of them) and specify that those are not in the DCEU. Either that or leave it as is now (marking which ones are in the DCEU). Putting the comment and then not specifying that, for instance, Batman (1989) is not part of the DCEU is essentially stating it IS in the DCEU, which it definitely is not. --Stevehim (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not clarify nothing, but you impose your criteria. The "DCEU" even it's an unnofficial name.OscarFercho (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The way you had it stated that any movie in the list was in the DCEU unless it was stated otherwise. That means you have to 'state otherwise' for every film NOT in the DCEU, which was not done. Without the second part, it means that all of the films were in the DCEU, which is definitely not the case. Also, the DCEU is 'unofficial,' but is the common acronym used to refer to the 'new' DC movies, beginning with Man of Steel. It's used in sources all over the place, and the point of wikipedia is, essentially, about sources. --Stevehim (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You only argue to impose your criteria without talk.OscarFercho (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. As I said a few times, if you want it to have the opening line, that's fine with me, as long as you follow through on what it says and post 'not in DCEU' next to every movie not in the DCEU. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense/is inaccurate, as you're effectively saying EVERY movie in the list is in the DCEU, which is false. I'm not sure how else to approach an explanation here. --47.20.121.2 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

vishnu

hi

my name is vishnu i was wonder when they making new movies sky high 2 when they get older like college or adults will stronghold growing up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8801:6EA0:C986:4E5B:B11C:8AFB (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

DC Imprints

I decided to seperate the imprints from the DC comics proper and I think the list is little bit more easily navigated with this reordering of films. 212.30.205.98 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the Mortal Kombat Reboot be included here?

Currently the old Mortal Kombat films, and its upcoming reboot are listed under the section List of American Superhero Films that are not based on DC or Marvel comics. Considering that WB now owns Mortal Kombat, and that they publish ongoing Mortal Kombat related comicbooks with lore that is in continuity of the games, and considered cannon to the source - should the films be listed within this section instead? I kind of think they should. --2601:645:C380:4CB0:C993:DE5:9E9:BF5F (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, there's no reason, it's originally a work of another owner.OscarFercho (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, New Line Cinema was owned by Turner when the first Mortal Kombat film came out, who year later marged with Warner but even if warner had owned Mortal Kombat from the start the mortal Kombat films should not be included here since they are originally based on Video games not comics, like every film on this list is. DoctorHver (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Lego Movie franchise

Since The Lego Batman movie is included in the "Lego versions" section, should we also include The Lego Movie (2014) and The Lego Movie 2? The same character, voiced by the same actor, has a decent sized role in these films. It just seems weird adding only this film and not including his other appearances in this franchise. I think it's only fair to include all 3 appearances of the same character. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Those films only features DC characters, but we can't consider as DC films; that's not its main theme.OscarFercho (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. It is a little weird only including Lego Batman's second appearance in the franchise, but I do understand your point. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

the lego verisons always feels complicated whether we are dealing with lego version of DC characters or some franchies. Personally I find the lego films to be too off model to what we expect the DC characters to look like in the comics considering this I personally wouldn't include them with any of the other DC comics films Animated (or Live-action) films. I also want too point out that the other animated films often leap of the Comic pages as some of them are direct adaptions of said comics while the Lego films are more of an original concept. with said this article could probably do with link over to the List of Lego films and TV series . DoctorHver (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Wasn't this films based on one of DC Comics imprints? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen_(film) It probably should be included unless its good case against it inclusion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen DoctorHver (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, originally it's an America's Best Comics' title.OscarFercho (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• • ABC was owned by Wildstorm (itself owned by DC) when the film was released, and even when the comic was in its original run. I'd be in favor of including it under the "From DC Imprints" section.72.220.230.147 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume One, on which the The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) article states the film is based, is listed on List of Wildstorm titles under the ABC heading of the DC Comics section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmrat (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a DC titler, not of a DC imprint.OscarFercho (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Animated theatricals and straight-to-DVD table

As reiterating my summary, the theatricals should have its own table since they don’t fit in with the rest of the straight-to-DVDs. Your last argument, that some had limited theatricals. I see your point but even I was hesitant on putting them on the table since they were originally meant to be straight-to-DVDs until last minute theatrical release. With the theatricals and home videos, they have different studios with WB working on them, they are not the same. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, other titles has a limited theatrical window.OscarFercho (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:@Cardei012597:@Sc2353: Thoughts. Thank you.OscarFercho (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though live action films are separated (mostly) from direct to dvd and theatrical, the split for theatrical animated films would only result in a small subsection table for only a handful of films. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for four films, in fact.OscarFercho (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That is still more than any of the DC Imprints table and Marvel animated theatricals. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is not enough, I insist, there's other animated films with limited thetrical window. That's other fact to consider.OscarFercho (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But those movies were meant to be straight to DVDs. I admit I didn’t originally put them because of that reason. The movies I listed were meant for theatrical releases. --Kinsley Bottom (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Need mor thoughts.OscarFercho (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

List of DC Imprint titles to be added?

1. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Published by the America's Best Comics, which was an imprint of WildStorm, therefore of DC Comics.
2. The Fountain: The Fountain comic was published by Vertigo Comics before the film (1 year prior), and based on the original script.
3. Stardust: It was first published by DC Comics in 1997 as four-issue comic mini-series, and then developed into a novel in 1999.
4. The Spirit: The character first appeared (and was published) in Will Eisner's Eisner & Iger, and was later published by Quality Comics, which is an imprint of DC Comics. --Bartallen2 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed. See on the archive of the talk page, there's an agreement.OscarFercho (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ZsJL?

ZSJL needs to be on the chart for live action films. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

DC Rebirth

Why is Superman: Man of Tomorrow, Justice Society: World War II, and Batman: The Long Halloween not listed as being part of the new DC Rebirth movie universe? They were changed briefly to accurately state this, but were revised for no reason. Anonypedia69 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Feature length films vs. Short films

@OscarFercho: In the main section "Live-action films", there are two short films listed, the 1951 Superman and the Mole Men and the 1954 Stamp Day for Superman. I suggest we should move these fims to the subsection "Serial films" and reword the title as "Serials and short films". The rest of the titles in "Live-action films" should be only for feature length films, at least 90 minutes in length. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The 1952 Superman and the Mole Men is Not a short, is a feature length previous to the TV series with George Reeves, that's the reason is there. The 1954 Stamp Day for Superman is the solely live action short from DC, is for that there´s no subsection of shorts.OscarFercho (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, it was only a suggestion. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@OscarFercho: I found out some new information about both Superman and the Mole Men and Stamp Day for Superman. After their original releases, they were both broadcasted as episodes of the 1952 Adventures of Superman (TV series). Exactly like the two episodes of Inhumans which first premiered as an Imax special, I think both Superman specials should move to the "episodes as films" section on the page because they were shown as films before they were broadcasted as episodes for the show. There are many sources that validate what I am saying, especially the DVD box sets of the original series on EBay. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the call. The first release was like a feature length and a short, I think both are in the right section.OscarFercho (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to confirm that my edit to move them to "Episodes as films" is the right move. "Live action films" just did not seem like the best section for Superman and the Mole Men and Stamp Day for Superman. "Episodes as films" is better because, even though they premiered as shorts first, they were retroactively included as episodes for the 1952 television series Adventures of Superman. There are sources online that corroborate with I am saying. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

But both are not episodes as films.OscarFercho (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There must be some miscommunication. I am saying that Superman and the Mole Men and Stamp Day for Superman were released as films (short films) before they were aired as episodes for the 1952 series Adventures of Superman. Just like the Inhumans premiere in Imax in 2017. They count for that section. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. But the first release was like a feature length the first, and a simply short the second. I firmly think there's no their place.OscarFercho (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just firmly believe they should not be considered "Live action films" when Superman and the Mole Men is a theatrical pilot episode, similar to Inhumans. The Inhumans premiere is listed in "episodes as films" section. Superman and the Mole Men is the exact same situation. An episode released in theaters as a special presentation. I firmly do not believe that qualifies as "Live action film", rather as "episodes as films". The short Stamp Day for Superman utilizes the same cast and crew of the 1952 series, produced by the United States Government, but still exists as cannon within that series. If you want, to alleviate the situation, I can reword the section as "episodes as shorts and films". I think this is an excellent compromise to the situation and fits the bill for these products produced by the tv series. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

At least, the short is not a episode as fiilm, and is the only real action short, his place is in the main section of movies.OscarFercho (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I reworded "Serial films" to "Short films", as by definition "Serials are a series of short films". I moved Stamp Day for Superman there, while keeping Superman and the Mole Men where it currently is. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Batgirl: Television/Streaming films vs. Theatrical films

@OscarFercho:, I decided to move Batgirl to the television/streaming films section, as the film will not receive a theatrical run. I do suggest keeping "Live action feature films" for solely live action theatrical films, but I am open to any better alternatives. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am also open to adding Zack Snyder's Justice League to the television/streaming films section. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is, open a new subsection for exclusively streaming films, for ZSJL and Batgirl; those are not television movies, not exactly, are a new format. In the future, Warner wiil do more streaming films, like Blue Beetle, the accurate is a new subsection, below of the main section.OscarFercho (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I can amend it. I was a little uncertain where to place them, so I will do your suggestion instead. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!! Agree.OscarFercho (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Theatrically released films Subheading

OscarFercho, please explain revert and don't ever revert with blank edit summary unless obvious vandalism etc. WP:OWN may be relevant based on quick look at edit history of article. 86.10.25.197 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Please, register as user.

The article, as you want, is overlinked.

The heading is unecessary.OscarFercho (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Have done but don't see difference in user vs. IP so don't need to recommend in discussion. What do you mean by "overlinked"? Shouldn't have sub-headings that are disguised and table of significant content without subheading when there's others in section, can confuse readers as they think there's no content before first sub-heading. Added the TOC limit to remove them from table of contents which thought would help. User 86 10 25 197 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see User talk:User 86 10 25 197. Your actions are resulting in an edit war. Any and all actions that escalate this issue could result in temporary blocks on all participating users. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Two points to note here: per MOS:SECTIONS, "Not misuse description list markup (';') to create pseudo-headings." So the semi-colon should not be used the way it is here. In addition, MOS:TABLECAPTION needs to be applied here, which may be a good way to figure out a compromise of some sort. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Erik:, amends made User 86 10 25 197 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have made the edit suggested by @Erik: but reverted by @OscarFercho:. Oscar, please advise how you suggest the article be amended to conform with MOS:SECTIONS and MOS:TABLECAPTION instead of just reverting and not saying anything? Indagate (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

OscarFercho, please see MOS:TABLECAPTION and let the article meet that accessibility need. The table captions can be rewritten, but they should not be removed. Whether or not certain section or subsection headings are needed should be separate from the table captions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I got it. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen & The Spirit

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is based on a comic book series by DC. And so is The Spirit. Anonypedia69 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen technically was first published by America's Best Comics, part of Wildstorm.. which was an imprint of DC at the time of publication... so if the Boys can be listed on the tv page, then it is appropriate to also list that one as well as the status is the same. The Spirit however was not created at DC, it's a longstanding property that was created as a comic strip in the 40s...while there was a brief run at DC it is inappropriate to list it here. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That was before DC bought WildStorm. It's not a DC imprint. Please wait to solve this before a sense change in the list.OscarFercho (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cardei012597: thoughts?OscarFercho (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

While it was in development at WildStorm before the sale, the series was not published until afterwards.. and the first two volumes of the comic were DC properties as is evident from the wiki article. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I added back The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, along with the proper note and sources to validate what was said during this discussion. Cardei012597 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I found that the first edition of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was published on March 10, 1999: per source at, Wildstorm was purchased by DC in January 1999, per source at, From the evidence gathered, I would say League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was indeed published two months after DC bought Wildstorm (ABC). Cardei012597 (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I gathered, I side with Spanneraol as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a DC comic publication, by two months. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

On second viewing of the "About Wildstorm" citation, I noticed that it says 'Wildstorm was purchased by DC in 1998'. This was also corroborated by this source: https://bleedingcool.com/comics/recent-updates/how-dc-comics-killed-wildstorm/ Cardei012597 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if it’s still on there, but when The Spirit (2008) was on HBO Max, it was listed among the other DC films in the DC hub. Anonypedia69 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Spirit was published by Eisner & Iger on June 2, 1940, many many years before DC had any connection to The Spirit comics. HBO Max was wrong in listing it in the DC hub. The Spirit will not be added to this DC page. Cardei012597 (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Under the Hood

Shouldn’t Watchmen: Under the Hood be listed in live action serials and short films? Tales of the Black Freighter is listed in animated short films. Anonypedia69 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Under the Hood would qualify in the "live action serials and short films" category, since its described as a "fictional in-universe documentary" running 38 minutes. Cardei012597 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, don't qualify.OscarFercho (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@OscarFercho:, thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Overview of DC film

What hapend to the overview of DC film and see the different film franchises? It was here before, and still is on the Marvel Comics vertion of this page. Pederjo99 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? I'm not seeing anything that matches what you're describing on the List of films based on Marvel Comics publications page. ShyKen (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)