Talk:Batman in film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Writing Style?

This article needs to be edited for language and style, wholesale. Several parts read awkwardly (plot summaries, for example) full of grammatical 'unevenness', to put it kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.20.72 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman: Darknight?

IGN says, "Man-Bat and Scarecrow were actually the villains in the Lee Shapiro and Stephen Wise script for Batman: Darknight." Might be something to follow up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What to include in this article

There are a number of approaches that could be taken with this article. When I started this, I had only the 1989 live-action film and the following live-action films in mind. I don't really oppose the addition of the 1966 film, though I don't really see it as part of the franchise that has been established by Warner Bros. It's not really part of the existing five films, and its box office or critical reaction does not seem comparable to the films that followed. I was reading Ebert's reviews of the WB Batman films last night, and he compares only these, not the 1966 film or the film serials. In addition, I'm not sure how the animated films can work in here? I guess it's more work than I expected, since I was planning to trace the path of WB's projects from 1989 to 2008, including the failed ones. Feel free to share your perspective here. Maybe we're better off calling this Batman films or Batman theatrical films? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we work on your initial approach first. It's going to be hard enough finding good, reliable information on all these failed projects, and the development of the ones that worked. Afterward, we can step back and say "hmm, maybe we can add the other films too", or, "eh...it really wouldn't help the article, only hinder it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nolan's films?

Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are conspicuously absent here. I've got an idea. The films from the eighties and nineties seem to follow the same continuity, but the 1966 film, Nolan's films and the animated films each follow their own continuity. How about we just make this article about the orginal film series? A gx7

Split

I've split the content of the article, since it didn't make sense to say that every Batman film was part of the same "series". Don't worry, most of the work from this one has been salvaged and actually expanded. A gx7 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You should wait till others have had a chance to actually voice their opinions, instead of taking it upon yourself to split the article into different articles (which is actually the antithesis of why this article was created in the first place). This article actually brought those separate topics together, as they became breeding grounds for extraneous, unencyclopedic, original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the title says it's a "series", but its not. Begins was a complete reboot. The new Spider-Man films have their own collective article, why shouldn't the new Batman series? It doesn't make sense to put the old one and the new one together if the studio made them deliberately separate. A gx7 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because there is no "old" Spider-Man series. That series might have had a couple television movies, but not feature films. Batman has had lots of feature films, in different continuities, and eras in time. This article is meant to be about Batman's theatrical history, not one specific series. There is Nolan information here (see the box office, reviews, and casting sections). We just haven't put in basic info in, like the "Burton/Shumacher" section has (which is incomplete itself). This article was a compilation of several weak articles (most notably those "never to be made" films).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not considering what "series" means. Here's the Wiktionary definition:

series (Noun)

1. A number of things that follow on one after the other or are connected one after the other.

2. A television or radio program which consists of several episodes that are broadcast in regular intervals

3. (analysis) The sum of the terms of a sequence.

Mask of the the Phantasm was a theatrical movie but was not part of the episodic sequence of the Burton films. Begins also goes back to the beginning and therefore not sequential; it is part of a different series. So if you're going to make this article about a "series" it has to be a sequence of episodes that are connected. If you want to make it about the character's theatrical history then you should just call it that.A gx7 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was actually considering moving the article to Batman films. How about it, anyone? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Batman (feature films), otherwise you'd open up a can of worms with the animated stuff (and there are quite a few of those), and there isn't that much information on the animated movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, a feature film would include Mask of the Phantasm. Is that what's desired? When I had this project in mind in the first place, I was thinking about the theatrical live-action films under Warner Bros. (Burton through Nolan). I didn't consider the other items like the serials, the film spin-off of the TV show, the animated films, et cetera. I'm fine with having these items included, but I have less of an interest in expanding them with attributable citations. I had this in mind as a place to include Burton and Schumacher's films, then the attempted projects in between, then Nolan's films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) You could do Batman (Live-action films) or Batman (Live-action feature films), as the latter would probably exclude the serials.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Would Batman (Warner Bros. films) or something on that level be too weird? I mean, in the real-world context, focusing on a company's theatrical production of a franchise seems appropriate. There could also be a Batman (animated films) article, but that doesn't seem as appropriate of an "umbrella" because it seems odd to put them together on the account that they're animated with very little other similarities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than that Batman vs Dracula film, Batman himself was voiced by the same guy in all the films. I think the continuity of those films was intertwined with the animated series, maybe not, but I think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker? Also, it just seems appropriate to have the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films in their own article because they're part of the Warner Bros. franchise. Box office analysis usually looks at just these films, and reviews compare the films among each other and nothing outside of them. I don't know if we need stronger citation to support this preferred focus by the industry. The point of this article was to reflect the real-world process of the Batman property under Warner Bros. -- the initial run, the attempted restarts, the successful reboot, and the critical perspective of the theatrical live-action films under WB. I don't really think that the other items (serials, animated films) have a place here. They're listed at Batman in popular media, and this article is more of a "study" of Batman films linked by the factors I mentioned above. I suggest excluding the films that aren't part of the industry perspective, but provide a top link to where they could be found. Any takers? Of course, we still need to think of an appropriate article title. Here's a new one: Batman live-action films (Warner Bros.). This is hard, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Conroy voiced Bruce Wayne in the film. ;) He just didn't voice the youngly that took over the Batman role. If you think limiting it to Warner Bros. films is best, ok. We don't have box office info for the earlier films, nor reviews, so really their information, currently, is limited to just a plot and some original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we'll see what A gx7 has to say. Maybe he has a better idea of what we could do. No rush here. However, though, do we really need all the uncited information in Batman Forever right now? It seems like a backslide to the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had this idea that our "snippets" for each film could possibly look like a "Featured article of the day", where you just use the lead information and do a "(more...)" at the end, like the FAoTD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. What are some sections we could build in this article? Surely there's some significant coverage about how the Batman film franchise slowly went bust. I'll see if there's anything in the subscription databases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the word you guys need for this article is "franchise". You could call it Batman theatrical film franchise or just drop "theatrical" if you wanted to include the non-cinema ones like Return of the Joker. Would that describe the sort of content you want to put in here?

As for the two main film series (the 89-97 one and the reboot one), I wanted to have a separate article on each: Burton/Schumacher Batman film series and Reboot Batman film series. What do you think? A gx7 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that they should co-exist because the relevant encyclopedic content for these films would be the real-world activities of how Warner Bros. had these two runs and had a stalled period in between them. I think it's an unnecessary split because the intention was for the series of films under Warner Bros., not a series in the Batman universe's continuity. The appearance, decline, and rebirth of the franchise should be explained in one place. Explicit production detail for each film would obviously belong to each film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is an article about the franchise and not any one of the series, then it should be moved to Batman film franchise. As I established above, the content of this article doesn't meet the definition of "series". A gx7 10:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Media perspective

• All Movie Guide
• The Numbers
• Box Office Mojo

The above links show an "umbrella" of the theatrical films. The Numbers and Box Office Mojo actually list Mask of the Phantasm, where AMG doesn't. I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Mask of the Phantasm. Does anyone know of any other prominent film sites that may list the Batman films like the sites have done? I've checked Rotten Tomatoes, but couldn't find anything... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, even the animated films are WB's. So, depending on the title of the article, it might fall in with the rest. We could always include a {{main}} link with that film. Did you check Metacritic or Yahoo Movies? (at work, so they won't come up for me).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we can focus on WB's theatrical films, which would encompass Burton/Schumacher/Nolan's films and Phantasm? Also, I checked out your recommendations -- Neither have a straight-up list from what I could find. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then let's list the article as WB's movies, and we'll worry about Phantasm when we come to it. It's probably easier to focus on the film that have garnered more attention and fame (or infamy).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

Having just gone through some editting and reverting with Alientraveller(Who i'd rather not disagree with), I'd like to discuss here the possibility of a broad overview at Batman Films, covering the serials and 1966, and then overview paragraphs for the later stuff, with links here (after moving to) Batman film series(Burton/Schumacher) and Batman film series(Nolan). The overview main page at Batman films can discuss the reboot in general terms, the BfsNolan can discuss specific interviews etc., and the BfsB/S pages can focus on the first four, and triumphant, and the stylistic choices (industrial/goth/techno/rave) of the four films. This would allow us to individually focus, but unite the entire Batman film history. We can even crosslink to the Dini/Timm animateds, and the new animateds, perhaps a Batman in animation page? ThuranX 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When I first considered film series articles for superheroes, I had intended to have the Batman series be more of a Warner Bros. franchise article, which would stretch from Burton's approach to Nolan's approach, with everything in between. In terms of real-world context, I've thought this was the best approach in terms of proprietary rights because there is a path to follow from Burton's creation to the pits of hell with Schumacher's creations to the rough ascent to Nolan's current attempt. Perhaps it was narrow-minded, considering other Batman media such as the 1966 version and the Mask of the Phantasm, but the live-action WB films seem to have their own story, so to speak. In reviews of Batman Begins, comparisons were basically made to the Burton and Schumacher installments, and not toward any other incarnation. I don't know if the other incarnations need mention in this Batman film series article, which could admittedly be renamed, other than the See also section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone get what I'm saying? :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has this discussion been silent for a whole year now? I think it's fairly obvious that we're dealing with two separate series; there's really no other way of seeing it. The Christopher Nolan movies are not part of the same series as the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher movies, because there is no serial connection between them. Case closed. I don't really even see a plausible case for making them one article, regardless of the article's title. I suppose there's no harm in having an article on "Batman feature films," but I fail to see the need for an article that encompasses two series that are so unrelated as these. At that rate, you might as well have an article for "Bush administration" that considers the current administration to be part of the same "series" as that of Bush's father. It just doesn't make sense that way. Chalkieperfect (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have been recognized as the "fifth" and "sixth" Batman films. It's the notion of one film after another under the production of a franchise. You may want to go to WT:FILM#What constitutes a series? to see a live discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Who has 'recognized' the Nolan films as the 5th and 6th instalments? They are clearly not of the same series, since they ignore many of the 'canon' elements of these previous WB films, most obviously in the fact that they have repeated villains that have already appeared in those films. I can only agree with Chalkieperfect's argument; it's either an article that focuses on a specific film series, or else an article that covers all film adaptations of Batman. Genedecanter (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a series in the sense that Warner Bros. produced a string of feature films about Batman, starting with Burton's 1989 film. This has nothing to do with the in-universe ongoings of the film; nobody is denying that there is no storyline transition from Batman & Robin to Batman Begins. From a business perspective, Warner Bros. sought to revitalize the series after the Schumacher films by rebooting the continuity so it could cash in on such productions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unproduced script retelling

I have removed two sections dealing with Frank Miller's and Goldman's unproduced movie scripts. Each was overly detailed and full of Original Research, and their tones were jarringly different than every other section in the article. I believe the information they contained is best served by providing a link to external sources rather than detailing every item of these un-made movies in an article that deals with the movies that have been actually produced. Captain Infinity 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. There's been too much going on in this article for me to really step in and address the content. I figure that when/if people talk about the follow-up to The Dark Knight, I'll devote some energy to shaping this article to be like Spider-Man film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The two serials and the 1966 film

Are these really necessary? I mean the Superman film series doesn't list "pre-film" stuff like this. I wanna know what other editors think. Also, I intend to "reshape" this article in the manner of the Spider-Man film series. That is a GA article and I want to make this article the same. Do you guys agree or disagree with deleting the serials and '66 film adaptation? I wanna hear your thoughts. Wildroot (talk - 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Catwoman

Shouldn't the catwoman movie be mentioned in this article. In the movie, the main antagonist (Patience Phillips) who becomes Catwoman finds herself amongst a series of images of prior catwomen, including Pfeiffer's Batman Returns version of Selina Kyle. Does that not make this movie a sequal/spin-off of the90's batman series?

Speaking of Catwoman - where are the citations that say that SMG and Christina Ricci want to be Catwoman? OK - Kate Beckinsale says she'd consider, but the Gellar article says nothing of it and there's nothing there about Ricci. 80.195.146.94 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a cite for Cher as catwoman: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/08/cher-to-make-th.html Originalname37 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another unfounded rumor. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman & Robin

Should Batman & Robin (film) be considered a failure (financially)? Considering it was the 12th highest ranking film for 1997 DOMESTIC GROSSES. Total Gross: $107,325,195.00 and Film budget: $125 million. (Batman and Robin. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved on April 30, 2008). Master Redyva (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotham Knight

Anyone seen Gotham Knight yet? Was hoping to see it mentioned here and learn more http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5508320/Batman-Gotham-Knight/Product.html -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldman's Riddler comment

I ahve removed the comment from the future section of Gary Oldman hinting at the Riddler. Oldman does not have any say in a future villian, so it is purely speculation. Plus, I seem to recall Batman 3 already has a villian. --PlasmaTwa2 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what villain you are talking about, as the production of a Batman 3 hasn't been decided on, at least to my knowledge. But Gary Oldman's Riddler comment seemed to just be saying that he personally was interested the character, not that any villain has been decided on, and it is indeed speculation. However, its mention has been put back up at some point, and is currently mentioned on the page, and perhaps should again be removed? 66.24.238.22 (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is how I read Oldman's comment... "Maybe we won't need the Joker, because (maybe) we'll have the Riddler (and he's the same as the Joker)." I don't think Oldman's a big fan, and to non-fans, the Joker and the Riddler probably seem very similiar. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs removal. Oldman's speaking about his ideas and opinions on the future of the story, it's real world stuff. That he's not one hundred percent right is irrelevant. Avatar is using his personal interpretation, esp. the riddler = joker conclusion, to justify removal. Further, what Oldman knows and doesn't is our speculation. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume he's at least spitballed with Nolan about the future of thinks, alternately, his was a calculated comment, intentionally dropped, as a tease. Whatever the case, we've got it, we should use it.ThuranX (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're using a lot of personal interperetations and and speculations, too. I'm not really bothered whether it goes or stays. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't mind it being mentioned so long as its taken in context, although I'm not entirely sure as to what the context is. I may not have made that clear earlier, and probably called it Oldman's speculation a bit hastily. From a video interview, it seemed as though he was saying that other characters could be used instead of recasting the Joker, using Riddler as an example. [1] 66.24.238.22 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article move

Shouldn't this article be titled "Batman film series" instead of using the parentheses? Parentheses are for a descriptor when more than one subject is referred to by the same name. It's uncommon to refer to the film series as simply "Batman", isn't it? People say "Batman movies", and the encyclopedic version would be "Batman film series". -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not per WP:NCF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCF reads For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be "Series name (film series)." That works for something like Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, where the series name is present in every title, and the film's individual title appears after a colon. Film series like Batman's and the X-Men's not only don't use colons, but you can't even always find "Batman" or "X-Men" in the title at all. Therefor, who says what the "series name" is, for application to this WP naming convention? I don't think you will commonly hear anyone say simply "Batman" to refer to the films collectively, especially when there's a film in the series that's called by that title alone. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast chart

Do we really need that cast chart? So few actors persisted for long enough to warrant a chart; so many roles turned over or were single picture roles that it's gigantic, and most roles are covered in the text already. Can we get rid of that mess? ThuranX (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been weeks with no replies, I'm pulling it. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Same series?

In what way are movies set in different universes, with different aesthetics, actors, characters, story arcs considered part of the same series? Maybe if this were "Batman films" or something, but to call them all part of the same series makes it seem like there's something tying them together besides just source material and the character of Batman. At the very least, I'd say Nolan's films are completely removed from the "series". Unlike the Bond films, which evolved thematically over time, the Batman franchise is just too checkered and gappy, methinks. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My contributions

A long time ago I worked on this article. I am responsible for the majority of the sections. This includes "Development", "Burton/Schumacher series" and "Unsuccessful projects". I think the Development section isn't necessary since I incorporated it (and in a better, more professional way) in the Batman (1989 film) article). Actually I don't think this is ready for GA status. Nobody has agreed to add the 1966 film in this article. Another editor said before that it's best to only include the 6 films produced by Warner Brothers. Comments can be addressed on my talk page. Wildroot (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about this widely on WP; Esp. as related to what constitutes a franchise or series. It's been slow but ongoing over at the WP:FILM talk... actually, it stalled there.ThuranX (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

I am at a lost as to why this film is being left out or overlooked in this article. Nor can I figure out if this exclusion is intentional or unintentional. Seeing as how this modern film was indeed released in theaters nation wide in 1993 and was the first Batman movie to get a unanimous thumbs up from both Siskle and Ebert, part of me wonders if this was a biased decision due to the film being animated or a not-so-obvious legitimate technicality. I feel this film should at least have a footnote, but of course, this is merely a passionate opinion. --Mike Castle (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the live-action films, not the animated Timm/Dini stuff, is the short answer. There is an article about the batman animated properties. ThuranX (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Shredding of citations and information.

I note that recently, Wildroot cut down the article. Although it needed some pruning, I see that numerous useful and highly reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal, were removed, even though their information was for more useful than the persistent, seemingly unending casting rumors. The entire Development section, detailing the long history of efforts to bring the film to screen, was also entirely excised. I don't think these changes make the article better. ThuranX (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of the info about bringing Batman to the screen is located in that article. I will restore that WSJ interview about the studio wanting it out by 2011 though. Alientraveller (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and do you realize that I was the editor who added that Development section in the first place? That's why I took it out. I was not satisfied with my work and added it into the 1989 film article. Sorry about the Wall Street Journal accident. I don't know how that really happened. Compared to the prior "Batman V" section, it's much, much better. Wildroot (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've moved it there, then that's good; perhaps a shorter version is worth constructing here. You also, however, dropped the 1966 film, yet again. While I agree it's as thoroughly unrelated to the Burton/schumaker as the Nolans, there are many who want it in. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought Erik made a good statement by saying this film series should only cover the films produced by Warner Brothers. Wildroot (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added the Development section, so everything is solved now. Wildroot 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman (film series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

It looks like this article has been needing a review for quite awhile, so I'll be reviewing it over the next few days. This is my first GA review, so if for some reason I think that it should fail I will instead ask for a second opinion to help make sure that I did the process correctly. You may contact me on my talk page if you have any comments or questions that should be directed specifically at me, rather than as a general part of the review process. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It definitely passes the quick-fail criteria. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Early thoughts

I'm about halfway through the article so far, and there are a few things I thought I'd point out for improvement:

• The Batman Returns and Batman Forever sections could use some citations and more about the making of the film.
• The following few sentences in the Batman section could use some reworking: "Numerous A-list actors were considered for the role of Batman before Michael Keaton was cast. The caused a controversy with his casting. In 1988, Keaton had been typecast as a comedic actor."

Other than those, things look good so far. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On the first point, the main articles for those movies have some production/development info; copying that over and then shortening it a little might work. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added two paragraphs that were deleted which I think help solve that problem. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the the Batman Forever section has been updated, and that looks good now. Batman Returns could still use a little work. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Plots

• Batman:DarKnight, Batman Begins, and The Dark Night all suffer from the same thing as Returns and Forever did; although I know that DarKnight wasn't released so information might be scarce, some more information on the development of each of them would be good. Having one that is primarily a plot summary won't make or break the GA, but two or three might. Once that's cleaned up a bit, I'll make my final review or put it on hold for more improvements. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't really studied the references; I've been looking at them as I go along and they all look pretty reliable, and there's a large number of different sources. If there's any particular link in the references that I should take a look at, please let me know. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On hold

I have put the review on hold for 7 days or until it is improved enough to pass, whichever comes first. The improvements that are needed are described in the "Plot" section above. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Wildroot. The Dark Knight still needs a bit of work, but otherwise everything looks good! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some more images would be nice, but the article is good without them. I'd recommend adding some more if this is ever going to go for FA status.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Excellent work. I think that the article is very informative about the series as a whole, without going into too much detail on any one topic.

Just Wondering...

Why aren't Batman: The Movie (1966), Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) and Catwoman (2004) here. I'm not gonna start a heated arguement because I don't care that much but I would like an answer. 72.95.145.190 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1966 film was produced by 20th Century Fox, not Warner Brothers. Mask of the Phantasm is an animated film and Catwoman, well that was just a terrible movie. Plus it didn't have BATMAN in it. This is the Batman film series. Yes, Catwoman was done by Warner Brothers, but is still didn't have the Batman character. However, I did mention Catwoman in the Batman Returns subsection. Hope that helps. Wildroot (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that 60s movie should be listed. I didn't even know it existed until now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that it's strange these three films aren't included. Yes, one's not by Warner Brothers, one's animated and one doesn't have Batman in it--but they're all part of the Batman film franchise. For that matter I think the film serials should be included as well. That would cover everything. A focus on just the other six films seems narrow when the article could be more informative. Like the above comment suggested, the article gives the impression that these are the only Batman films, which they're not. It comes across as more corporate than historical. Maybe this should be changed to Batman in film or Batman film franchise. A gx7 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The title of the article is Batman (film series). Note the word series. The movies listed in this article aren't a series--they're two separate series (the Nolan series is completely different from the Burton series). If these two separate series can be included here, why aren't the other mainstream, theater-released films? I can understand not including the numerous direct-to-video movies in this article (they should be mentioned, but I'm open to debate on how much information should be in this article (if any at all)), but the Batman serials, Batman (1966 film) and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm should both be listed, and the word series in the article title replaced.Noz92 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the necessary changes under the new title "List of Batman theatrical films" (see the version I produced [[2]], but ThuranX reverted them. Here are the reasons ThuranX gave:

• to listify to match attempted title would require all report of attempted films, dead-ended films, abandoned and proposed scripts, and so on, jsut 6 precis of other articles. I thought it did? All relevant information was covered to my knowledge.
• use talk. It was already discussed. The only reasons given by the one person who argued against it were that the proposed change wouldn't fit in with the existing scope of the article.
• New page is out of MoS How was my version not compliant?
• this is NOT a list article. Fine, it doesn't have to be, but the problems of the inaccurate title and arbitrarily narrow scope remain. A gx7 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article mentions that it doesn't cover the 1966 movie, but it doesn't mention that doesn't cover the film serials, Mask of the Phantasm or Catwoman. It's as if the article is trying to pretend that only certain Batman movies exist. Maybe a vote between the two article formats is in order? A gx7 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I explained in those edit summaries exactly why I reverted, it's pretty clear: YOu were not writing a LIST, you were writing some amalgamated anything sorta batmany in film article, material already present in other articles. A list of such films would require removal of all the developmental material between, leaving brief precis of the 7 films. Serials aren't films, and Catwoman isn't a part of any batman series. There's no good reason to move t oa LIST article either, a true list would have seven lines to it.

I oppose any move or split. I can accept the inclusion of the 66 film here, but think it's already mentioned, and was removed at one point with consensus. The serials likewise are mentioned and linked, and that's enough. The scope of this article's well definied in the lede. ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To me an amalgamated Batman film franchise article is less arbitrary than a Live-action feature length theatrical Warner Brothers films starring Batman article, which would be the title of this article if it was accurate. A gx7 (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it would not; the scope of this article is clearly defined. Add an 'Early films' section here, mention the two serials and the 66 film, but we're not going to cover the animnated stuff, which has its own article, nor the Catwoman. And take this to the NEW section, I'm not playing the fight on two fronts game. ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the "Future" section:

"However, he did not rule out any characters that have been featured in previous Batman films."

What is that supposed to mean? He did rule that out, from my understanding. By the way, I think it's suppose to say "that haven't been featured". If that was the case, it would be reduddant. 72.95.145.190 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment, and edit, are both confusing. The article reflects the source. read the source if you need. ThuranX (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See Also....

Can someone add a link to "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Wildroot (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More Info On Batman 3

Well sort of. Check this link.[3] Appearently this only proves that a 3rd Batman will in fact be made, but it offers no more info. Think it's article worthy?Zabbethx (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

proper link (other link broken). No. There's nothing new not seen before; his estimate is based on the hopes of WB if Nolan gets on board soon. We've yet to hear anything about Nolan comign back or leaving, without such news, we seem to be seeing the same spec over and over. ThuranX (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IMDb just listed an "Untitled Batman Project" as in-development and gave it a page located here. I know there's a lot of infighting about the inclusion of IMDb material as a reliable source, however pages on IMDb such as these are created solely by IMDb staff editors based on their independent review of information supplied directly from film producers--in this specific case it is not user-edited content in any way whatsoever. Whaddya think about putting a mention of IMDb's listing under "proposed third film"? 66.19.101.90 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that this film is "in-development". We've known that for months. Wildroot (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nolan's original plans for third film

Would it be worth mentioning in the future section that Nolan had originally planned for the Joker to return in the third film to scar Harvey on trial. This obviously won't be happening, but the fact that it applies to a third film might be noteworthy. Thoughts? 96.235.16.217 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That was David Goyer's idea. Wildroot (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Poster dispute

Charliestafford (talk · contribs) believes TDK's poster should be the one in the infobox and not the first film. He has not explained why. Therefore, to compromise, I have removed any poster from the infobox until we reach consensus on how to illustrate the article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote on article rename

This is an establishment of consensus to move the article to Batman in theatrical film or Batman film franchise so that it can cover all of the incarnations of the Batman franchise in cinema rather than just two film series (note the article is currently misnamed).

I support this because the film serials, 1966 film, animated film and Catwoman are being excluded without reason. The change would be more a comprehensively historical and honest account of the Batman mythology in film. A gx7 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for Batman franchise media then. Alientraveller (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that; the section on the films is part of what provoked me to point out the problem with this article. What does it list under Theatrical movies? All of them, because they're all Batman films. This article is misleading. Type in "batman movies" or something similar and "Batman (film series)" comes up, as if they are the only Batman movies. It doesn't even mention the ones I highlighted, as if they don't exist. Another thing is that these are two separate film series. So the only options to be accurate are to either make separate articles for the 89-97 and 05-present series, or put all Batman films in the one article. A gx7 (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What connects the Burton/Schumacher and Nolan series together is the fact that they are both distributed by Warner Brothers. Wildroot (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, a direct line of development can be drawn between them, as this article does, reflecting a desire to first continue the franchise, then reboot it, and so on. I note that the early films have brief write-ups now, which should satisfy all but the most ridiculous holistics. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, we should mind, what the article was originally about. The Batman film series are the six live-action theatrical films distributed and produced by Warner Bros. There are of course many more films, but they are not part of the series. It´s like the James Bond Films. There are 24 (?) theatrical films, however only 22 are considered to be part of the official series, meaning the Eon-Productions-series, and with the 21st film there was a reboot (like with Batman´s 5th). So I think, the article should be about the Warner Bros. Live Action film series, as originally intended. On the animated films and the 1966: They´re spin-offs/tie-ins of TV-Series and set within those canons, meaning, they fit better into these Series´ articles. And the Serials are technically not feature(length)-films (nor part of the Warner Bros. Film series). However, you could turn this article onto some kind of list and indeed include all theatrical productions. In that case, I´d vote for a renaming of the artcicle into something that includes the words Batman snd theatrical ^^ 87.174.181.18 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion went stale long ago. There's not going to be a change, nor should there be. ThuranX (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it went stale, but I don´t think it´s quite over. I think the article is fine so far. The one thing that I´m wondering about, is the Preceding Films section. What is the perpice of the section? The introduction of the article clearly states, it is about the six films since 1989. The "preceding films" are not related to these films other than being based on the same comic book character. I don´t see how it fits into the article (e.g. better than an animated films section or a television films section would).87.174.187.102 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose is to give a proper cultural and historical context. You'll note that it's a short section, and that's why. Just because an article focuses on one topic doesn't mean we have to offer it, ungrounded, and create a sense of the placement of the topic within a greater setting, cultural, historical, or whatever is appropriate to the topic at hand. ThuranX (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can mention in the Lead section that the serials and 1966 film have no connection to Warner Bros.' films. Then again, Nolan's films are a new continuity, different from Burton's and Schuamcher's. The only similariteis between these six films are the fact that they are produced by Warner Bros., Michael Uslan and Benjamin Melniker. I should have thought about this before I got this article up to GA. Pretty complex stuff. Wildroot (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that perpice thing. I´m not a native speaker. but thanks for correcting me :) If you want to give a cultural and historical context, then why don´t you talk about the comic book character, the film series is based on? The Way, the article is now, it looks like the films are based on two serials, which were once made into a film before the WB film series. As for the Nolan Reboot issue: It´s like the Bond film series. Only that they made 20 films before the reboot, instead of "just" four. 87.174.205.134 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me, or to many other people. the lead states that it's movies about batman, who is linked, and it does give a cultural and historic context to the development of the batman franchise films, which consists currently of the B/S series and the Nolan series.

As to Wildroot's solution, we can only state, at best, that there's no apparent line of development from the two serials to the Batman series. As seen, there was movement in the 70s and 80s discussing Ward and West before moving in a new direction. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To just list the three live-action productions, that have been released theatrically before, is to thin to give a cultural and historic context to the series. Why leave out the 1966 series? Because it´s a TV-Series? Why then is it ok to list a Movie Serial? I think, what you want to say (in the section) is "there were other adaptions before.", which I´m not opposed to. But it leaves out a significant amount of Batman film productions. What about animation? That´s also Batman on film. And if you do a "previous films" section, what about an "impact" section? How have the films influenced the comics? New TV-Productions? Not to forget Spin-off films (Catwoman), etc. 87.174.215.217 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given you answers aplenty. There's consensus against it, there's already context given, that's enough. This article's focus, as defined ,is on the current franchise system. there are other articles in more depth on those, and the 1966 mlovie notes the series. that's enough. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven´t realized any consensus other than you forcing your opinion upon others. I think the preceding films section is inappropriate for the article; at least in the way it is executed now. Even the Catwoman films fits better into the article, since it was a clean spin-off using and expanding on the Concepts of Batman Returns. Look at the Superman Film Series for comparison. Do they list Superman and the Mole Man? Or the Serials? Do they list Supergirl? You will find, that both franchises are quite similar. Or aren´t they?87.174.205.161 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have comitted vandalism. Don´t get cocky, boy.87.174.243.47 (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The catwoman, as noted previously, is thoroughly unrelated to Batman Returns. There was clear opposition to removing all of that material, because there was clear insistence from other editors previously to add it. Yet after being told numerous reasons why it stays, you blanked it. That's vandalism, of the WP:POINTy kind. ThuranX (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I´m sorry. Where can I read about what those editors wrote?87.174.222.80 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Im still waiting for an answer...87.174.207.41 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Animated films

If "Preceding films" are listed, why not the animated ones? Granted most were direct to TV/Video, but Mask of Phantasm was in theatres. Also, a direct to video movie is still a movie. Emperor001 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The animated films aren't "preceding films". They were all made in the '90s or something. Wildroot (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But they're still films that were made at the same time as the others. Shouldn't they at least get mentioned? Worse comes to worse, a separate article for animated films? Emperor001 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed above, and was not a problem for hits article passing GA. The scope of the article is clearly defined, i fail to see what the problem is with understanding it. There are articles for the animated films. ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Problem is, that it is talking about something, but starts off with something else only mindly related. In other words: the Spider-Man film series article does not refer to previous adaptions (the 70s TV-Show), because there is not really a point. Same here. Either you do this straight and mae an article about the franchise or you more reasonable exclude the clutter and make it straight about the six WB films. Or eveb their 2 sub-series. 87.174.207.41 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we provided the context needed. This isn't hard stuff to understand, and bringing up other articles doesn't always mean much. In this case, as shown by the 70s and early 80s development, the earlier Batman film from the 60s certainly does matter, and editors made the choice to mention briefly the serials to fully contextualize the history of Batman on film. ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Being the biggest contributor on this article, I have to agree with 87.174.207.41. However, it doesn't extremely bother me that the 1940s/60s films are mentioned. Wildroot (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this article isn´t about the history of Batman on film. It is about the film series by WB! To ehich neither the 40s serials nor the 60s film belong. If you want to contextualize, maybe it would help if the Preceding Films section would be worked into the Developement Section. 87.174.220.150 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude. Move on. Tired of going in circles on this. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dito! 87.174.192.6 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

mad hatter edits.

An IP continues to edit in the appearance of the Mad hatter in one of the abandoned fifth installment films. After just edit warring it in, without citations, he's now citing a spanish fan forum, as well as a fan-written site. I've removed it, as neither is a WP:RS, but he continues to edit it in. ThuranX (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Brian Austin Green wishing to portray riddler

His comment was taken completely out of context. He comments on it in this article http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6636&Itemid=99 towards the end.

"It's stupid. And all of a sudden it was like, I was putting out there that I think I should be the Riddler. It was just asking what my favorite movie was and who I would play." DeyveM (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable decision to me. If his earlier statement was mischaracterized, and we have it from him about that, let's avoid the apparent BLP issues he represents feeling in the interview you link. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wildroot (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

reported/suggested

I found, after Wildroot complained, a better citation that Jolie had been suggested for the role of Catwoman by Julie Newmar. I have not found any citations that report she has the role. ThuranX (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem saying that Newmar suggested Jolie for the part, after all I never deleted Newmar's quote. However, Newmar most likely isn't even involved with the third film and doesn't have final say on casting decisions. That's up to Nolan and Warner Brothers. Saying that Jolie has been suggested by Newmar sounds like she is actually being considered or something. I wasn't trying to say that Jolie has the part, in fact, it might be better to change "suggested" to "rumored". I could care less (I'm just simply sick of comic book movies), not to mention Catwoman probably won't even be in the third film. Then again, there is that rumor disclaimer in the previous sentence before the Catwoman information on Beckinsale and Jolie. I dunno....I should have probably thought this over. Wildroot (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, go think it over, and come back. Until then, let's keep it as suggested. Newmar DID suggest that Jolie would be good in the role; we DO have a rumor disclaimer to preface the paragraph, and there's nothing 'reporting' Jolie or Newmar is involved, nor is it just a 'rumor', as we can attribute it to one actress with some qualification regarding the character's portrayal making the comment. ThuranX (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can keep it as it is. It just still bothers me a little. I don't know why. Wildroot (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Split / rename

As this article covers two separate film series, shouldn't the article be split to Batman (1989 film series) and Batman (2005 film series), or be renamed to Batman (franchise) as per WP:NCF? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. Schumacher's films are different from Burton's films, though they were produced on a consistent timeline. While Nolan's films reboot the fictional universe, some people still saw Batman Begins as the fifth Batman feature film, particularly under Warner Bros. Pictures. Perhaps we need to universalize the topic... Batman films or Batman in film? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - reading WP:NCF again, Batman (franchise) doesn't quite fit the bill, as that should include everything including animated series, etc, etc. But I do think Batman (film series) isn't the correct title for this page. In my view Batman Begins is not a "prequel" to the other four movies; a clear reboot, and thus a separate series. As WP:NCF doesn't have a guideline for this scenario, don't know what to suggest that would follow on from the naming conventions described. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you were right the first time, Rob. This bit from WP:NCF specifically states the convention on this:

"If there are two series with the same name, use Series name (YEAR film series), where YEAR is the year of the first film of the series."

Erik's point of some people seeing the two series as continuous is in no way particular to Batman, as that would apply with any two film series that share the same name. Seems pretty open and shut to me. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the split because this is an aggregate article for Batman feature films, as reflected by the "Box office performance" and "Critical reaction" sections, not to mention the characters. The split would mean that there are only two films for the 2005 film series, and a third film is by no means guaranteed. It is a better approach to rename either as Batman films or Batman in film, and I'm preferring the latter. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see the page title take its lead from WP:NCF and follow the conventions there. Thing is, I can't think of an appropriate title. Unless this page and Batman franchise media are merged to Batman (franchise) under the heading "Live action feature film" or something? Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the sentence in WP:NCF was meant for the split you propose. Like there are TV series with the same name, there are probably film series with the same name but of completely different subject matter. There is precedent for this grouping, as Box Office Mojo presents. That's why I think Batman in film can encompass all details related to the character and the films, and the details are a bit in-depth for the franchise article, in my opinion. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCF is referring to two completely different series that just share the same name. This isn't the case. Both "series" are about Batman. The fact that continuity has been reset is irrelevant to the fact that it's still one long series of films. I'd be for a name change, if that would help, but I don't support a split into two distinct pages. I'd even be for "Batman (film franchise)", so that it would help to encompass all continuity, but also restrict it to just the films. You wouldn't have to worry about the animated films, or the comics, etc.. (unless of course they were off shoots of a specific film, like many games were).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Erik and Bignole here that the split wouldn't really be useful. No body would be confused as they are all here and the article splits timelines already with the 1966 batman film, the old film serials and the other elements that aren't really related to each outside the central character. I'd re-name the article before proposing a split. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, Bignole and Andrzejbanas about no split. While they are two film series, they are not two "separate" film series. They revolve around the same main character, feature many of the same secondary characters, are based on the same initial source of material (the DC comics) for characters and storylines, and were produced by the same company. They are dealt with well here as a cohesive whole. While there isn't a good standard yet for how to deal with reboots, one example that is relevant is James Bond (film series), which includes both the "official" line of Eon productions films and the "unofficial" film Never Say Never Again (a "reboot" of Thunderball) and the Casino Royale parody from 1955. They're all in that article because the unifying theme is films about James Bond, and not who specifically directed them or whether the storylines purportedly followed each other. -Krasnoludek (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky one really. I don't think I'd really advocate a split, as it is a good article giving an overview of all the Batman films, but I do think the title should make reference to the fact that it isn't just one series. However, thinking further, maybe it is best left as is. I had a look at the Bond page, and that does mention the non-eon films as an aside, but it is very clear that they are not part of the same continuity. The Daniel Craig films are rather uique as they do retain some of the continuity from the previous films (Judi Dench...) but reboot to his first mission. However, this is not the case with this article as Batman Begins starts a completely new continuity, and new origin story. But hell, the comics do that all the time, and you'd include those as one series. Oh I don't know! Just thought I'd bring it up! Rob Sinden (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Like Erik and Bognole, i oppose a split. I would be open to a change in name that allows us to retain the occasionally bitched about mentions of the serials and '66 film. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a split would not be the best for this article; it's better for the reader for the information to remain in one place. A simple move to Batman films or Batman (film franchise) (the latter being my preference) would give the title the necessary scope. Steve ^T • C 07:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Choosing a new name

The consensus seems to be to not split. Editors appear to be open to renaming the article, though. We have several options: Batman films, Batman in film, and Batman (film franchise). My opinion is that "Batman (film franchise)" does not quite do it because of the serials, the adaptation of the TV series, and the animated films not quite belonging in the same "franchise" as the live-action films under WB. For me, "Batman films" sounds too casual. "Batman in film" is my choice because it sounds like the most proper umbrella article to cover the various topics and not worry about storylines or franchising. What do others think? Is this one justified, or is one of the others more justified? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have had a more positive discussion on this subject than the editors here. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would Batman in film not also have to include animated films? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If we're mentioning the serials, we should mention the animated films (particularly the DTV ones). Perhaps we can have a second characters table identifying the voice cast. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has been stronger on focusing on the encyclopedic than many others; if the move means a need to include animated, we should similarly group them and focus on the franchising, to maintain a strong article. ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Batman in theatrical film, that way the DTV animations can be left out? Or the whole article could be incorporated to Batman franchise media under that heading. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your (Erik's) comment about Batman (film franchise) makes sense; in that case, I support Batman in film as the best of the bunch. I see no problem with allowing the animated films as part of the article's scope too. Steve ^T • C 07:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Batman in theatrical film, as it avoids grey areas such as the animated Justice League movie Starcrossed, as well as Batman: Revenge, Batman Dracula, Batman: Dead End and all the other fan films. My second preference is Batman in film. ArtistScientist (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not mention them, too? It does not have to be a section for each film. We could have an "Other appearances" type section that identifies where else Batman has appeared, and readers can visit the links. The aggregate information can focus only on theatrical film (box office performance and critical reception). Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that not then distract from the focus of this article? Are they not better served on Batman franchise media if they don't have a page of their own? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is named "Batman in film", then I think it would be on topic. The renaming gives us an opportunity to inform readers of Batman's smaller appearances, and such information will not be core to the article. It will be a kind of supplementary section that goes at the end, saying something like, "Batman has also appeared in several DTV animated films, voiced by John Doe. In addition, several fan films have been made about Batman: A, B, and C." A little more fleshed out than that, but kind of a "See also" section in prose. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik might be right; there's no article that gives a list of non-official Batman films. As of now readers are forced to locate them individually. They wouldn't belong in Batman franchise media because they're not part of the franchise, so maybe they should be in Batman in film. See here for my ROUGH proposed structure of this article. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose fan film inclusion. They are non-notable, in that there is minimal if any coverage of the best produced, to say nothing of every imbecilic youtube thing. It rapidly becomes cruft-farming. Keep it to officially licensed productions. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the fan films that have articles. If they are non-notable, they should be put up for AfD. Notability does not apply to whether or not such films are mentioned in the article; it is based on if the information is discriminate or not. I am not looking to cover them in detail but to have a couple of sentences identifying that they do exist. I disagree with ArtistScientist's layout, though... I think such items should go at the bottom of the article since while they are discriminate, they are less important than the officially licensed productions. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fan films wouldn't be fit for inclusion if this article was determined to only cover the films that made the history of Batman films appear neat and cohesive. But the truth isn't that tidy, and we're not interested in making things appear a certain way. I mentioned above at one point that I would like to avoid such messiness as fan films, but looking at their impact I think it would be right to cover them:

• Batman Dracula was directed and produced by Andy Warhol, leader of the pop art movement, and featured in the documentary Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis.
• Batman: Revenge was featured in the September 2008 issue (#145) of Total Film Magazine. The custom-made Batman mini-fig used in the film has been set at a value of $582.39 USD by an independent auctioneer estimate which makes it the most valued LEGO figure, custom or official, in history.
• Film director and comic book writer Kevin Smith called Batman: Dead End "possibly the truest, best Batman movie ever made", and comic book artist Alex Ross praised it as "Batman the way I've always wanted to see him".

So we can see that some non-official productions do have notability. I'm not too bothered about where they go in the article though. ArtistScientist (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nothing says teamwork like a slap in the face to everyone who has contributed to the article before, so good job. Nice to know we're all part of the evil conspiracy to whitewash the truth. ThuranX (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked on the article in part, and it's not a slap in the face to me. At the very least, we should link directly to Category:Batman fan films. We can discuss the amount of content to include, but renaming is the first priority. I will create a separate discussion to request a move, and we will figure out the details for the topic later. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Batman (film series) → Batman in film — Previous discussions show that the term "film series" does not accurately apply to the various incarnations of Batman in film. There was consensus not to split the article into smaller chunks, but there was also interest in renaming the article to encompass the sub-topics properly. "Batman in film" seems to be the best fit, but other suggested titles are welcome. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should it be in film or on film? — AjaxSmack 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"On" would be used for television because it's literally on the television screen. Or something could be "on" the big screen. But when talking about film as a medium the grammar would be "in" film. I nominate Batman in film. ArtistScientist (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there is precedent for "<TOPIC> in film": Vietnam War in film, Nudity in film, Combat in film, Dance in film, London in film, etc. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Batman in film. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Works for me. Hiding T 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Batman in film. Initially, I would have preferred Batman in theatrical film, which was suggested in the split discussion above, but a good case was made that the article should mention of other appearances in animated and fan films, so that there is a central repository for these links, even if the meat of the article is the theatrical films. With this structure, the proposed title seems fitting. -Krasnoludek (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.