Talk:Batman Returns

claims of best
The claims that the film is one of the best superhero and sequels ever is not verified with these sources. Each source is just an opinion article no critical poll or anything just listicles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How have you had that many discussions at The Dark Knight Rises and you still don't understand reliable sources? These are not claims being made in the lead either. Do not remove sourced content on a whim again when you've been told not to without a discussion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources aren’t enough for a claim one of the of the best sequels ever. It’s just lists why do these count but the other lists don’t ? Jaszen (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So if it’s not in the lead that’s ok then? Jaszen (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On The Dark Knight Rises you were consistently looking for an excuse to add to the lead that it was one of the greatest films ever or to over inflate its legacy. You have been informed multiple times about reliable sources, that you can't use things such as IMDb or Ladbible also. There are a high number of reliable sources backing up the claim of it being one of the best superhero films and explanations why also in the article to support that stance. That you felt it appropriate to remove about 10 references on a whim instead of discussing it first is derogatory to the work done here by myself to find those sources and others who have copy edited or contributed to it since. Batman Returns is not even my favorite Batman film but it's legacy is undeniable as is its cultural influence and the iconic status of many aspects of the film. That is why it has reliable sources backing it up and TDKR doesn't. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 10 lists that aren’t critics aren’t enough for a claim of best superhero ever. Batman returns is on no list from critics. Neither rotten tomatoes or metacritic have returns in the top. I’m going from batman film to film and applying the same basis by which rises article was removed. All I’m doing is being consistent Jaszen (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For claims that returns is one of the best sequels you have empire vulture and a rotten tomatoes list which doesn’t even have it in the top 30 how is that enough? Jaszen (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rotten Tomatoes list is based on critical reception score. There are also thousands of sequels, being named in the top 100 is notable when its by reliable sources, and the statement is that it is considered one of the best sequels. If it said the best sequel, among the top 3 sequels ever made, then yes that sourcing wouldn't be enough. You've had about 5 pages worth of discussions about this at the Dark Knight Rises, which is why I said start a discussion at WikiProject Film so you can get other opinions because I'm obviously not going to agree with you. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You understand why I think it’s weird that this rotten tomatoes list is good here but not on the other page right ? I think the list should be valid on both pages Jaszen (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In your opinion would that list be viable for rises as well? Jaszen (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be dependant on how you phrase it. Can you use that source alone and say "one of the greatest sequels", no, if you were to say "On Rotten Tomatoes, The Dark Knight Rises is listed as the 75th highest critically rated sequel film based on aggregated review score" or something similar. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the list batman returns comes in at 95th also the empire list is a duplicate 1 should be removed the older one Jaszen (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The other list with the top 101 sequels has returns at 42 so that plus rotten tomatoes at 95 doesn’t seem sufficient for best sequels ever right? Jaszen (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The best sequels ever part should be removed agreed? Jaszen (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I don't reply it doesn't mean I agree with you, it means I'm tired of this discussion and it's going nowhere. The two Empire sources are not the same source, they're the same magazine but different lists for different purposes. It's in the top 20 on both Empire sources and top 50 on the 101 list and again these are reliable sources. Please don't extend this discussion further without getting input from others because I'm not going to agree with you. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Requests for comment Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So if I also don’t think the claims hold up I should request for comment? Jackolick (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Should Batman returns have be regarded as one of the best Batman films, superhero films and sequels ever on its legacy page ? For Batman films there’s been only around 10 live action films so that should be far too few to say it’s one of the best. For both best superhero films or sequels most of its sources are list from websites no single consensus from critics and the sources it uses are mostly outside of the top 20 such as this source from rotten tomatoes l this source has it as the 95th best sequel ever which is nowhere near a good enough source that it’s one of the best ever or this source which has it has the 41st sequel.Coop14677 (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it probably should, the reader should be able to evaluate the sources and work it out. H i ding T 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Initiator has been blocked as a sock of a disruptive CIR user who has repeatedly pushed these sorts of claims in the past. Procedurally removing the RfC tag unless another editor would like to restart discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

a question
is it necessary to add Category:Rating controversies in film as part of the film's category due in large to its marketing and even international releases like UK? 2600:8801:3:D800:E1C5:5FE6:78BB:BEA5 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Owen Glieberman link
please change ((Owen Glieberman)) to ((Owen Gleiberman)) 2601:541:4580:8500:D8F:C2AB:A3AC:3C83 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

based on
Here Batman (1989 film) we can read: Based on

Characters by DC Comics Batman by       Bob Kane Bill Finger[a]

In this article (Batman Returns) we can read:

Based on

Batman characters created by Bob Kane and published by DC Comics[a]

this does not fit together. The name Bill Finger should be here as well. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how it's credited, that's what the note is for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for your answer. With Batman, Catwoman, Penguin we have three characters in this movie wich are all created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane. But here we can only read "Batman characters created by Bob Kane". This is not true - even if we have a footnote. --Qwertzu111111 (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was true at the time, that is how the credits were given. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By 1992, it was also official that Penguin and Catwoman were from Bill Finger and Bob Kane. -Qwertzu111111 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the information that it was official? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction Information
I feel like the paragraph before the plot is too detailed the current one is this::

After the relative failure of Batman Returns, Burton was replaced as director of the third film, Batman Forever (1995), with Joel Schumacher, to take the series in a family-friendly direction. Keaton chose not to reprise his role, disagreeing with Schumacher's vision. Batman Forever and its sequel, Batman & Robin (1997), fared less well critically, with the latter being considered one of the worst superhero films ever made and stalled the Batman film franchise until the series reboot, Batman Begins (2005). Batman Returns has been reassessed as one of the best Batman films in the decades since its release, and its incarnations of Catwoman and Penguin are considered iconic. A comic book, Batman '89 (2021), continued the narrative of the original two Burton films, and Keaton reprised his version of Batman in the DC Extended Universe film The Flash (2023).

I feel like it should be changed to::

After the relative failure of Batman Returns, Burton was replaced as director of the third film, Batman Forever (1995), with Joel Schumacher, to and its sequel Batman & Robin (1997) A comic book, Batman '89 (2021), continued the narrative of the original two Burton films, and Keaton reprised his version of Batman in the DC Extended Universe film The Flash (2023).

Some of that information is relevant yes, but I feel it would be better in a section below titled "Future", "Franchise" or sequels. T-ZER0 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Reads like an essay by a fan.
The text lacks encyclopedic tone. There seems to be a focus on praising the work, rather than documenting praise given by others. Much is repeated, which is hard to forgive in something this long. I propose a cleanup, starting with removing repeated assertions. Sterlingjones (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I wrote it and I'm kind of mid on it, but it's always a successful discourse when you open your discussion by being rude. Do you have an example of repeated assertions? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, re-reading it, you don't make any sense, it's a neutral document of the film with a critical reception section describing it as polarizing. There's no "focus on praising the work", you need to be clearer in what your problem is rather than a) being rude, and b) giving no examples of anything. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand from your reply that you are the sole author of this article, that you feel a sense of ownership over it, and that my comments have offended you personally because you value objectivity and honestly believe that the text you have presented reads like an encyclopedia? Sterlingjones (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you going to contribute anything of use? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You started your replies to me with the assertion that my observation that the articles tone is wrong is "being rude". You have gone on to establish an adversarial tone in this dialogue.  I am not interested in working on improving this article if you are telling me in advance that you think it's perfect as it is and are going to revert any changes made.  But as an example, let's start with the first paragraph.  The first two sentences provide meta information about the film.  The third and fourth sentences contain plot summary.  The fifth sentence lists cast members.  This is not an example of proper paragraph structure.  @https://www.grammarly.com/blog/paragraph-structure/
 * The second paragraph belongs in the Production section and lacks citations.
 * The third paragraph contains statements belonging in Marketing and Reception, and again lacks citations.
 * The fourth paragraph contains statements belonging in Modern Reception and Sequels. It also is written in persuasive style rather than expository...i.e. "Batman Returns has been reassessed as one of the best Batman films in the decades since its release, and its incarnations of Catwoman and Penguin are considered iconic."  It seems that the writer is trying to convince the reader on a personal level that Batman Returns is a "good" movie.  Such things aren't the job of an expository essay.  Also, in order for the citations provided to support the notion presented, the reader has to understand the word "iconic" as meaning "good".  Since that's not what "iconic" means, it causes the credibility of the article to falter.  And again, it lacks citations, forcing the reader to find citations in later sections in order to discover the source of the assertion.  Finally, the appeal to a faceless third party in the summary where it says "has been reassessed" implies consensus has been reached among the critical community, which is not the case and can therefore be considered deceptive.Sterlingjones (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You established an adversarial tone with your section title. You seem to be talking about the lede, which is a summary of the body text and doesn't need citations. It's standard across every article and is meant to be in 4 paragraphs so it's not possible or plausible to break the intro, cast, and plot into separate paragraphs. This is, again, standard. Anything in the lede is present and sourced in the body text, so if the distinct thing about those characters is that they're considered iconic, and it's undeniable that they are, particularly this version of Catwoman, then that's what the lede would summarize. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)