Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 3

Opening in lead
This minor change has been reverted by Dash9Z on at least 3 occasions now over several days, and the first two were without explanation. Now in the latest revert, it was finally revealed that the reasoning behind all the effort was that the previous version has been in place "for months". Aside from this being weak reasoning to backup multiple reverts of such a minor change, it doesn't really state why there is a problem with it. Without a proper reason, this behavior contradicts the policy outlined at WP:OWN. I didn't think this would be necessary, but apparently it is:
 * Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a 2016 American superhero film featuring the DC Comics characters Batman and Superman, distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures.
 * Why are we cramming "distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures" into the first line here? Not only is it unnecessary, the information is clearly less important than who directed the film. My edit corrects this.
 * The film is directed by Zack Snyder, with a screenplay written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer...
 * This is just a bit clunky and awkward. I separated this compound sentence by moving the Zack Snyder bit into the previous sentence where it belongs with the Warner Bros. distribution bit. I see no reason to retain this version.
 * It is a follow-up...
 * Probably the best part about the change I made has to do with abolishing the use of "It". Why someone would want to retain the pronoun, especially when there is another way, is beyond me.

Hopefully this helps clear the air, though somehow I have a feeling it won't. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently I've been reverted again. The reasoning this time is that the lead follows the style used at Man of Steel, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Looking for some feedback at this point. At the very least, I don't quite understand why the distributor needs to be mentioned before the director, as it would seem the order of prominence would be the reverse. Other film articles such as Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Jurassic World, and the The Fifth Element (a featured article) list the director first in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I probably would have done it slightly differently, but I prefer GoneIn60's version for the reasons already stated above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The first two edits were without explanation because they were minor edits. I mentioned it's been like that for months because nobody else seemed to had a problem with the style before you did. The examples I shown are superhero films in cinematic universes which follow the established style. Those films you mentioned are not superhero films in cinematic universes so they will have different styles. The Star Wars films have their own style for the lead with some slight differences. Look at the leads from the examples:
 * Man of Steel is a 2013 British-American superhero film featuring the DC Comics character Superman. It was co-produced by Legendary Pictures and Syncopy Films, and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It is the first installment in the DC Extended Universe. Directed by Zack Snyder and written by David S. Goyer, the film stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Christopher Meloni, and Russell Crowe.
 * Avengers: Age of Ultron is a 2015 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics superhero team the Avengers, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. It is the sequel to 2012's The Avengers and the eleventh film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The film was written and directed by Joss Whedon and features an ensemble cast that includes Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, James Spader, and Samuel L. Jackson.
 * Captain America: Civil War is an upcoming American superhero film featuring the Marvel Comics character Captain America, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. It is intended to be the sequel to 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger and 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the thirteenth film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The film is directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, with a screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, and features an ensemble cast that includes Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, Frank Grillo, William Hurt, and Daniel Brühl.
 * Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is an upcoming American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics superhero team Guardians of the Galaxy, produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. It is intended to be the sequel to 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy and the fifteenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The film is written and directed by James Gunn and stars an ensemble cast featuring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Sean Gunn, Glenn Close, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, and Kurt Russell.

Dash9Z (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Tell me, what about the style means it only pertains to superhero films? I was simply changing the position of when the director and distributor are introduced, and other minor grammatical changes that have nothing to do with the fact this is a superhero film. So it doesn't make sense that superhero films would need to use a different format for this part as opposed to any other film. It just doesn't make sense. By the way, in your Man of Steel example, the "distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures" actually appears in the second sentence. Surprised you haven't called the superhero task force to fix that one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All articles are different. What may work on one (ie the MCU films), may not work and/or flow here. Other articles can be used a "template" for formatting, but they don't have be hard and true to that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly prefer GoneIn60's wording, personally. I've never been a fan of the "template" used for Marvel film leads, and I fail to see why it should become gospel for all superhero films. Sock   ( tock talk)  17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback so far. To help clarify for others, here are the two versions:
 * Current:
 * Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a 2016 American superhero film featuring the DC Comics characters Batman and Superman, distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It is a follow-up to 2013's Man of Steel and the second installment in the DC Extended Universe. The film is directed by Zack Snyder, with a screenplay written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, and stars Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill...
 * Proposed:
 * Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a 2016 American superhero film featuring the DC Comics characters Batman and Superman. Directed by Zack Snyder and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, the film is a follow-up to 2013's Man of Steel and is the second installment in the DC Extended Universe. Its screenplay was written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, and the film stars Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill...

If anyone else wishes to comment, you can simply indicate whether you prefer the current or proposed version (or even propose your own). Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, seems there's no other opposition to the change, and there has been no response from the only editor who opposes. With at least 3 editors supporting the proposal (possibly 4 if you count Favre1fan93's comments), I've reinstated the edit that was reverted several days ago. Time to move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your proposal. Still gets all the info across, no matter which way you word it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
On the the third paragraph, can we remove the part where it mentions the negative reviews and the drop in the box office?

2601:185:201:28A6:5565:99D6:CEA8:9A19 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. IMO, the reception of a movie should be part of the summary, but it doesn't seem like there is a clear consensus here yet. -  a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  15:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Constant Revision of Critics' Response section.
"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has received a polarizing reception from critics with many either loving it or hating it. However, the film's reception garnered a large amount of praise from fans" - So many glaring problems with this CRITICS RESPONSE section

1. When the Rotten Tomato score is 29% and it undoubtedly includes any critics you'd like to mention in its 280+ critic's aggregate score, there is no 'polarization' - there is 71% who disliked it and 29% who liked it, in other words, it's universally agreed to be bad. Any other page with a 45% or lower score is, if it is at all, described in an opening line of "was not well received by critics"

2. The opening line "The aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes had a score of blank bakery blank" has been used on every other film page, but this page, because the author of the revisions is clearly an apologist fanboy, decides to soften the blow with misleading lines about polarity.

If you're going to open with that one, keep it factual - "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has received a polarizing reception from critics with many either loving it or hating it, HOWEVER THOSE WHO HATED IT OUTNUMBERED THEM BY 3 TO 1."

3 This is the CRITICS RESPONSE section, not the AUDIENCE OPINION section. Critics viewpoints are the subject of this section. When the Rotten Tomato score and Meta critic are both horrendous, it is not an author's job to mislead and misrepresent the facts because he is a batman or superman fan. This is not your personal blog. There is no justification for the biased edits that keep showing up in the critics section.

People come here for true information not for opinions hopes and skewed propaganda from authors who don't accept that their film is universally panned.

Keep your polarization and your audience polls in the proper place and Leave the RT, Meta critic and Professional critics to do their job. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you have the right to manipulate the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthemileage (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but have you read how the critic section is playing out? It basically says everything you are saying and slowly the "average to mixed" spin is being weeded out as the story about B v S evolves and the consensus among the press solidifies. Remember, this film just came out so you can't expect instant verification. It's headed in the direction you want but we have to let it do so organically otherwise it becomes a POV war, that is really unnecessary. Learn to take, "Yes." for an answer. And, just to be transparent here, I'm a fan of this film HOWEVER I'm a bigger 'fan' of wikipedia and objectivity so I'm doing my part to keep my bias to myself. Don't worry, this fact about this film is being represented. Just give it the time it deserves to bake, so to speak.P.S. The "polarizing stuff" isn't needed, the data says this quite clearly. Leave that interpretation to the audience/readers. Otherwise it is Original research.Ghriscore (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted recent changes to the opening line in the critical response section. The opening now reads:
 * On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of 29%, based on 286 reviews, with an average rating of 5/10.
 * This is plain, simple, and straight-forward. It is also the same format used in other articles, such as Jurassic World. Keep in mind that Rotten Tomatoes only deems reviews that score 60% or higher as positive. It does not specify whether a review scoring below 60% is mixed or negative. So we can't assume that all 202 "rotten" reviews were outright negative. Obviously some of those (if not many) were in fact, mixed. Unless a consensus forms here to summarize the findings from review aggregators, it's best we leave it out and let the numbers speak for themselves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But then 29% means what, exactly? Certainly SOME context should be allowed unless there truly IS some confusion.


 * This line, "It does not specify whether a review scoring below 60% is mixed or negative. So we can't assume that all 202 "rotten" reviews were outright negative. Obviously some of those (if not many) were in fact, mixed." This is just not true. The score doesn't indicate anything, but after the RottenTomatoes people went through ALL the reviews THEY felt comfortable making the call that this film was "negatively received" as a whole.


 * Here is the editorial about what the Rotten Tomatoes people found when reviewing the consensus of critics,"The nation’s film critics were not big fans of Batman v Superman as reviews were quite negative. In fact, all five movies which opened bigger had good to great reviews so, Dawn of Justice scored the best opening in history for a critically-panned film."
 * http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/box-office-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-dominates-the-weekend/


 * Look, I agree with your sentiment. Most of the time it is hard to tell and I hate POVs (fans or haters) being represented in these things. But it's perfectly reasonable to allow some context, especially in a case like this really is not being debated anymore in the press or the public. This isn't like the Man of Steel debate which truly WAS a mixed reception, splitting critics and fans. Hopefully as the week or two progresses, the consensus in the press will be clearer and we can start to reflect that in the article. P.S. IMAO,this really is becoming a case where B v S fanboys, worried that the critical reaction might hurt the box-office, are taking it out on wikipedia...hoping that by suppressing the reality it might somehow help Warner Bros not lose money in coming weeks. Remember...if this film doesn't have legs, then it doesn't matter HOW much money this movie is making now. It will have to not drop any less than 60% in the coming week to stay on track to be profitable. Again, it is just my opinion, but it feels like this war against the critics here reflects that fear, and it's our job to prevent that ego-driven influence from seeping into this page. My 2 centsGhriscore (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And just to clarify, I'm not in opposition to a summary statement. To me, 29% is truly a low score that definitely crosses the "negative" threshold. My only concern is that it is agreed upon here first, since obviously there has been some disagreement as to which wording should be acccepted. The change I made earlier is the same compromise used in other articles where the use of "negative", "mixed", or "positive" led to a lot of bickering. In one case, we used "not well-received by critics" to imply both mixed and negative, so we didn't have to pick between the two. That could be a good alternative here as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are preaching to the converted. We seem to agree in spirit here. I don't think we need a consensus for such an easy call, just very careful thoughtful semantics, neutral language and precise data/citations to back everything up. The word negative is not a naughty word. I don't mind the line "not well-received by critics." I think the problem is this: when a movie is negatively received this much, as B v S certainly is, I think people think that "negative reception" means the same thing as "the movie sucks." Not at all. For instance, the sequel to Silence of the Lambs was negatively received by the critics. But it was a good movie. The problem is that the first movie was SO big in a cultural and critical sense, that the second movie REALLY disappointed the critics. It was a good movie, just not great. Sometimes a movie is universally panned because it is bad, like the "John Carter" movie adaptation or "Son of the Mask." Other times a movie has a negative reception because it simply fails to live up to expectations, "Alien 3" or "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." The problem with B v S is that it falls right in the middle. Don't get me wrong, the film is good. But I would be lying if I said it was great. It's a definitely a letdown if you were going in expecting "The Avengers" or "The Dark Knight" and the problem is that "Warner Bros." was pitching this film as the 2nd coming. I can hardly blame critics for panning this film as a "let down."


 * I think the solution here is simple. It's a fair call to say this film was "negative received by critics" and we simply make sure that the reviewers themselves when quoted mention their "mixed feelings" about the film. Interpretation belongs there, the summary belongs in the data part of the article itself. We just have to make sure to avoid weasel words and POV language.


 * So, for instance, saying that - "B v S was negatively received by critics and therefore was a disappointment" is the wrong approach. It wouldn't be wrong to say "B v S received mostly negative reviews" and then quote the actual articles, with both sides represented, to add the color necessary. This fairly represents ALL sides whilst STILL reporting the truth. My 2 centsGhriscore (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that Metacritic has the film rated at "mixed or average". So we have a situation where RT and MC don't entirely agree. That has been a big concern in the past, where we have to be careful not to pick one over the other. It's looking like "not well-received" is the better phrasing to use here, since it includes both mixed and negative in its meaning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree: The metacritic "mixed or average" is just the auto-response by the site based upon a poor formula that is not editorialized NOR thoughtfully explained. It would be like saying that Rotten Tomatoes found B v S to be "rotten" since that's what they do. It's their Siskel and Ebert thumbs up or thumbs down approach. RT and MC don't disagree. It's apples and oranges. A film could be "negatively reviewed by critics" because they found the movie to be "average" or had "mixed feelings" about it and had high expectations for the film. This is getting absurd from you, mate. This film has reviewed mostly "negative" reviews from critics, and the consensus in the press has bent itself in that direction more than enough. It's not our job to be Polly Anna about this and balance it out for Warner Bros. Stop with the POV warring please.Ghriscore (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where all this animosity is coming from, but I can assure you that my concerns here are legit. I will not be the only one who sees a contradiction in the two aggregator scores, and on Wikipedia, we do not favor one over the other. If you have a problem with Metacritic or their methods being cited as a reliable source, take it up at WP:FILM or WP:RSN. Also instead of ramming changes into the article, it's best to leave it neutral for now until we get this sorted out. I will post a notice at the film project to see if we can get a few more opinions on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This movie is big enough that we should be able to find reliable sources to cite and summarize what critics thought of it. MOS:FILM states, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." Don't use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to try to summarize it. Open the section with other sources summarizing the critics' perspective with other sources, then provide statistics from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic after that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this would be the better approach. There are plenty to choose from. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Several are already included in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above editor says, "Don't use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to try to summarize it." and rather suggests "This movie is big enough that we should be able to find reliable sources to cite and summarize what critics thought of it" and you AGREED with that. Yet, you snuck in what the Metacritic aggregator auto-formulation app came up with anyways. That is where the animosity comes in. If you find something in the press that THERE IS AN ACTUAL DEBATE about whether critics "negatively received it" or found this film to be "average or mixed" then that is one thing. But you are grabbing obscure quotes or outdated sources that say "average or mixed" and hoping by implication that this alone somehow disagrees the consensus in the press and public which is very clear at this point; THAT CRITICS HAVE MOSTLY REACTED NEGATIVELY ABOUT THIS. My animosity is coming from your banality and insincerity. I have no problem letting the data speak for itself and so I have cut out most of my feeble attempts at satisfying ALL sides. But this is now getting absurd. I get it. Some of you LOVE or HATE this film. The sad part...I actually like this movie. But I'm not going to help some of you trolls shill for this film as much as I dug it. As if anything WE do here is going to affect the box office anyways.LOL...Grow up people, please.Ghriscore (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what makes Rotten Tomatoes legitimate in your eyes, and Metacritic not. They arrive a different conclusions because they survey different sets of data and have different methodologies. The reason they disagree sometimes is because MC counts some reviews as average/mixed while Rotten Tomatoes doesn't. As an example, the four "mixed" reviews by Bill Goodykoontz, Rene Rodriguez, Anthony lane and Robbie Collin on the Metacritic front page are all classied as "rotten" (with the exception of Goodykoontz) by Rotten Tomatoes. Their review scores average out at 47.5 on Metcritic whereas on Rotten Tomatoes only 25% of them considered positive. So two different methologies applied to the same four reviews lead to a 47.5/100 "mixed" score on one site and a 25% positive score on the other. What makes Rotten Tomatoes more correct than Metacritic in labelling these four reviews? It seems largely subjective as to whether a 2/4 score or 2.5/4 score indicate average or negative scores, and it is these types of ratings that the aggregators treat differently. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said I was favoring RT over MC in this debate? I'm fine with leaving out BOTH conclusions. However, the "mixed to average" algorism is an automated one generated by MC and doesn't take into account qualitative data, etc. RT simply calls a movie "fresh" or rotten depending on what side of 60% it is on. I'm uncool with both. However, in some cases, it is easy to determine if a movie is critically acclaimed OR critically panned. "Man of Steel" is a better example of a movie that had a mixed to average reception by critics though over time the movie is considered a stinker now by them. The press has done a good job monitoring this movie and it is clear by the multiple, verifiable sources that this movie was, generally speaking, negatively received by critics in a landslide. As to WHAT makes them react negatively to it is not on us to decide. Maybe they were simply expecting an epic film and didn't get one, so even if the movie was okay they reacted negatively because they felt they were being promised a great film. So when they come out with mixed feelings, that's enough for them to pan it. OR maybe this movie is just so bad that it just sucks. That's why we can quote a few critics to give this piece color and perspective. But as for the consensus overall, don't confuse a negative consensus with a final judgement of the movie. Some movies are loved by critics but hated by audiences, some movies are hated by critics but loved by audiences, some movies are loved by audiences and loved by critics and some movies are hated by critics and audiences alike and sometimes audiences and critics are divided on a movie. Confused yet? Don't be. Most of the time, it is hard to make this call. But some movie are easy to call. Like "Guardians of the Galaxies"...it was a darling with the critics. "Batman v Superman" was clearly disliked by them, by like A LOT, for many complicated reasons. A movie like "Battlefield Earth" was HATED by critics. You get the picture. I liked "Batman v Superman" but I'd be lying if I said it was great. But I didn't go in expecting a great movie. So I didn't get butthurt over it. HOWEVER, the DC people promised the second coming with this film and marketed the hell out of it and how great it was going to be SO I can't blame critics for not liking it. They were over promised and under delivered. And in it's second weekend, the film had a record breaking drop in box-office so it seems the audience isn't all that hooked by this film either (ie. it doesn't have legs). Just try not to take this TOO personally. This is wikipedia and NOT IMDB. The rules for wiki, even if you don't agree with them, take precedent and for decorum on this, read: MOS:FILM which states, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." Don't use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to try to summarize it. Nuff said.Ghriscore (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghriscore: For the record, I never attempted to sneak "mixed or average" into the article, so that isn't an accurate claim. I was simply proposing "not well-received" in place of "negative". That doesn't mean I'm against "negative", but seeing that there was a lot of edit-warring over that term (that I wasn't a part of), I was suggesting this compromise. If "negative" is to be used, it needs to clearly be attributed to the source(s) that have summarized it that way, and I would think we'd need at least two, which shouldn't be a problem. If these steps are taken, I do not oppose the use of that term. Secondly, you were attempting to classify all non-positive reviews on RT as "unfavorable" (diff), but as Betty clearly points out above, that's not a good idea based on their methodology. It is better in that situation just to state the rating, the total number of reviews, and the average rating. That's it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60: There really isn't a lot of edit-warring on this. Trust me...I've witnessed my fair share of it in other articles, and his tame in comparison, mostly because it is hard to argue with the facts here. Speaking of facts, the majority of those reverts were coming from anon trolls and drive-by edits and suspected socks, most of which have been reported and dealt with. At present, it seems like this issue has calmed down now that the excitement over the movie has subsided. Unless you have a major issue with it, and you are saying you don't, it would appear that the way the article reads at present is working out for everyone. The current use of the word "negative" is being directly sourced and summarized in a way that is in line with other wiki articles. ie. many wiki-articles are okay with making this call as long as it is clearly decided in the press and therefore can be backed by sources and such. And we've done that. Whether we use the phrasing,"poor...bad...negative reception" the articles are in agreement that B v S was, generally speaking, "negatively received by the consensus of critics" and "negative" is a nice neutral word since it doesn't judge the film in any artistic sense and using the words "poor" or "bad" would be borderline weasel words in a summary. We can't use "mixed and average" in a summary as it would be spinning this since what made this notable with the press and the public at large was how united the critics were AGAINST the film. This film isn't polarizing critics in the same way that "Natural Born Killers" or "Man of Steel" did, which is a notable story in its own right, but not for this. Critics as a whole have pretty much thumbed their nose at B v S. Maybe the fans and critics represent some strange "mixed to average" split on this (I don't know), but since we are only talking about critics here, who cares? Truth be told, it seems like only us DC fans are rallying on behalf of this, and the film is losing interest, fast...if box office returns are any indication. As for RT and MC, that was MY feeble attempt at satisfying all sides when this got absurd. I've been fine leaving RT and MC alone and there is no need to add RT's "rotten" rating or MC's "mixed to average" rating. So, unless you are being insincere, let's leave the article alone as is, and drop this for now. CheersGhriscore (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you insist on reiterating your position against "mixed or average". We've moved well beyond that debate, and I never supported that phrasing anyway. Yes, as of right now, the critical response section looks fine. Though this discussion appears to have come to a close, there's always room for improvement, especially in terms of grammar. Your suggestion to leave it alone is unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reception in opening paragraph
So how long exactly are we supposed to wait until we put a brief recap of reception in the opening paragraphs? Any other major film has this, so I don't know why this page doesn't have it yet. And to those thinking I'm "biased", I was shot down for using neutral terms for not being honest enough, then I was shot down for using honest terms for using "weasel words". It's been a week. Almost 300 reviews are in on Rotten Tomatoes. It's safe to call. 50.184.189.5 (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops, wasn't logged in at the time. Buh6173 (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And don't be offended by wikispeak. "Weasel words" isn't implying that YOU are the weasel.LOL..I agree with you in spirit. I just want to get this right...so right in fact that we can finally shut up the fanboys and the haters coming here trying to turn this into a battlefield. Funny that Batman v Superman has turned wikipedia into Fanboy v hater. Oh, the irony.Ghriscore (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--Jonipoon (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the following proposal in the lead?
 * The film was not well-received by critics, who generally found the narrative unfocused and the running time excessive. However, some praised the performances of several cast members and noted the visual appeal of the film's action sequences.

This is a balanced statement that accurately reflects some of the feedback from critics listed in the critical response section. At Terminator Genisys and Man of Steel, we used similar statements, so there is precedent for this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Audience response does not go in the header. If you look at Terminator Genisys and Man of Steel, the header only mentions critical response. If you want to bring up the unfocused narrative and running time, that's fine, but the dour tone and poor representation of certain characters (Batman being a murderer, Lex Luthor being a Joker wannabee rather than Lex Luthor, etc.) were also common criticisms. And no, you don't need to use hyperbole; I'd rather keep this impartial as possible. No fanboy nonsense. Buh6173 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , First of all, let's assume good faith and not throw fanboy accusations into the mix. I have not seen the film, and in no way am I trying to promote it. Secondly, who mentioned "audience response"? The proposal here has nothing to do with that. It is an accurate summary of what is reliably sourced in the critical reception section. In fact, here's a line verbatim from that section, "...but did receive praise for its visual spectacle and the performances of Affleck, Gadot, Irons and Hunter". The 2nd sentence in the proposal basically rephrases that in a way that keeps it more generalized, which is appropriate in the lead. Seems like you're OK with the 1st sentence, but I have to hear if or why you oppose the 2nd sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors shouldn't analyze and synthesize critical reception; any summaries should be attributed to reliable source(s) corroborating them. Critical opinion is always diverse and infinite by nature, even when a film is largely praised or panned. Stating that critics ("generally" or "some" or "most") preferred or disliked this or that, without citing a reliable source explicitly supporting that, would be WP:original research, more specifically WP:synthesis. Lapadite (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , all due respect, have you read the critical response section? This proposal is only summarizing what appears in that section, which is already reliably sourced with inline citations. So clearly, this is not original research. There's also no need to repeat those citations in the lead. This has been discussed at WP:FILM and on other article talk pages, and in the examples I've given, summaries like this were deemed appropriate. There's precedent for this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, trying to analyze or synthesize the negative critic reception of B v S as a "mixed or average" response by you oddly trying to somehow blend those different critics together was MY objection as well. Maybe it is a moot point, however, as it seems like you are dropping this as the article is reading well at this point.Ghriscore (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Summaries are appropriate when they are attributed to sources that explicitly support the summaries. There are already sourced summaries in the section. In the current version, the summaries from Newsweek, Variety, and The Independent (The Mirror is unnecessary) are sourced, however The Wall Street Journal and Business Insider aren't. Then there is the Rotten Tomatoes critical summary. And then this summary follows − "The film received criticism for its dark tone, excessive running time and unfocused narrative ... but did receive praise for its visual spectacle and the performances of Affleck, Gadot, Irons and Hunter", attributed individual reviews. It is WP:synthesis, and there's no need to preface individual reviews with "the film received [criticism or praise for this and that], with [publication/critic] calling it ___"; this may give WP:undue weight to the highlighted reviews. All these summarizes are overkill, and the ones that are not directly supported by a source's own summary should be removed (i'd say the section needs a bit of rewrite). WP:SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source ... 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (emphasis mine). See also WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly ... Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". You reduce edit warring when the information presented is explicitly supported by cited sources. Lapadite (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lapadite, that is a good catch. I didn't look at it that closely, and I agree, these issues need to be fixed. My proposal above was assuming everything was properly sourced and that none of the summaries were synthesized. Apparently, that's not the case. We can drop this lead proposal for now until these issues you've identified are resolved. I would support your efforts to cut out the unnecessary bloat and to fix the statements that have violated WP:synthesis. Since you've already done some of the initial work by checking the sources, please feel free to proceed, as I don't anticipate I'll have much time over the next few days. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60This 'issue' (lol) has/is already being addressed. I agree that the Wallstreet journal source is a bit lame. The summary had already been updated days back to include the "Newsweek" source, which you concede is "sourced" and apparently the critical reception section needs to be updated as well. Done. As far as the rest goes, I couldn't agree more. The problem has been that some of us allowed some of this bloat to offset/appease the edit warring that zealous DC fanboys were causing because their beloved film was being trashed by the critics. I'm a meat and potatoes DC fanboy, so I don't love this stuff so much that I can't be non-biased here. Maybe that is why my tone is a bit terse here, it's a waste of time having some of this debates. I have no problem with removing some of this unnecessary bloat. Hopefully this will not trigger more edit warring. I've already reported some of this to the mods and they have been actively watching this page, issuing warnings when necessary, and that seems to have deterred the anons and the socks from hijacking this page. Fingers crossed this peace will hold as we perform liposuction on this page.Ghriscore (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lex Luthor or Alexander Luthor, Jr.
This might be a relevant aspect of the movie that is not being properly presented in the article. Eisebenger's portrayal of "Lex Luthor" might not be the Lex Luthor from the comics, but rather a different character (Luthor's son, who happens to have the same name). Here is an MTV article discussing this point. I think it might be worth a mention in the article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We know the article. The point is that in the film, although his "name" is "Alexander Luthor", he goes by and is credited as "Lex Luthor".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Flash Cameo
The Flash's cameo is explained via source: http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-the-flash-scene-explained/ DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. We aren't saying that it isn't the Flash. The point is that the film doesn't identify him, thus we don't identify him in the plot.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I thought it did not make a difference since the character is named in the Cast section. Which is why I included it. :) DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The plot summary isn't the best place for things like this. Given the context of the above article, the better place to mention this is probably Development. DonQuixote (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bignole is right. Why is this such an issue for editors???? I've seen a lot of discussion over such a trivial thing. The movie doesn't call him "The Flash" so we don't. End of discussion. Wikipedia isn't an excuse for fan fiction.Ghriscore (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok first, you need to calm down and collect yourself so you can reply in a professional manner. Second, it was a honest mistake and I clearly said I understand the reasoning behind it. No other discussion was necessary. DrkBlueXG (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you, mate. I was just venting in general about this silly debate.Nothing personal.Ghriscore (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless I misremember, he was named The Flash in the end credits. Jmj713 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't about a credit, it's about the actual film not identifying him in the scene or thereafter.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing Fanboy-padding of the Criticis Repsonse section
Starting the section with 'Newsweek and Variety reported that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice received a negative reception from critics' is pointless and only serves to lead readers to the false assumption that those publications are supplying the negative report, when the very next line makes that quote irrelevant, because Rotten Tomatoes covers all possible negative reviews cumulatively with 319 critics reviews included."Rotten Tomatoes reported a 28% approval rating based on 316 reviews, with an average rating of 4.9/10. The site's critical consensus reads etc, etc." The first statement is redundant and misleading when put before the Rotten Tomatoes score. 99% of your critics response sections never have anything but the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic score in the first paragraph then everything else, every other publication, every other critic comes after in the second and following paragraphs. It seems like somebody placed this in there because they could not leave it alone as it was a week or so ago in the normal format

Also, and again with the subtle attempts to mislead or downplay this disaster, the quote "BBC News commented on the mixed reviews for the film, saying that, "the film had been widely praised by fans after its first screening in New York last week. But critics have not been so positive about the long-awaited movie" This is the first quote at the top of the section usually reserved for individual critics reviews, excerpts from those reviews, and statements from Publications. A statement about an opening weekend crowd is misleading because opening weekend Crowds Are full of fans who pre-ordered their seats before any critic even saw the movie Under the gag order. It is also biased towards people who are very interested in these type of movies are these characters, to quote the fans were very enthusiastic but the critics were not is extremely insincere and ultimately a gross misstatement, a falsehood. After the first weekend, the attendance dropped over 60% and the following weekend even another 50% so this statement left in this critics response has been left here for no other reason than some Fanboy who works at Wikipedia will not let the fact that the Batman vs. Superman movie was a complete and total failure. Why not put a quote about the fan attendance dropping off in two consecutive weeks? Because this is the critics section, and fans going to a film has nothing to do with objective honest neutral opinions as the critics are supposed to be.

Leave the critic sections for the facts for the quotes for the stuff that is not involving Premiere night Fanboy reactions because we all saw that the movie dropped like a stone after all of the biggest fans who bought them movie tickets six months ago had seen it.

I have never seen such back and forth tainting of sections to dress a pig up like a prom date than I have seen on this page since the movie came out. Get people who do not have any dog in the fight to write the section the proper way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsthemileage (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You can scroll up to see other related discussions, and if you then have something to add that hasn't already been discussed, feel free to add them here or there. You are correct in saying that a majority of film articles only have the RT and MC statements listed first, because in most cases, the film is obscure, received mixed reviews, and/or wasn't well-covered in the media as this one has been. In addition, we cannot use RT or MC on their own to portray the negativity in the critics' reception, simply because the two review aggregators don't entirely agree with one another. Also, the methodology both use do not quantify the "negative" aspect in reviews, which is why we have included two sources – Newsweek and Variety – who have done the analysis for us. This is all discussed above. Regarding early fan reception comments by BBC, to me it seems like an appropriate place for the statement, but I can understand if it seems incomplete. It doesn't address the fall-off in revenue or analyze fan reception later on. If you can locate a source that covers that, I would support adding additional information about that aspect.
 * Many of us here are open to suggestions, so remember to assume good faith and keep it civil. If you truly want to help improve this section, then focus on the content, not the contributor. Propose the changes you would like to see, and others will comment here. As a disclaimer (if it helps), I have not seen the film, and I did not add any of the statements you are contesting. In fact, I did very little work on this section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you man. Part of the problem is we have to respect the contributions of others and assume good faith, even if it's a little obvious that fandom and loyalty is creeping in a bit. If you read carefully, we've actually done a pretty good job of balancing this out. But it could use more work, yes. I will try a few things...see what happens. Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 ranking
Someone should add that BvS is the second highest-grossing film of 2016 behind Zootopia and it became the second 2016 film to gross over $800 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.180 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141002095221/http://www.myfoxchicago.com:80/story/26652488/worlds-greatest-superheroes-returning-to-chicago to http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/26652488/worlds-greatest-superheroes-returning-to-chicago
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140519074355/http://ontheflix.com/2014/05/18/batman-vs-superman-gal-gadot-seen-filming-wonder-womandiana-prince-scenes-other-day/ to http://ontheflix.com/2014/05/18/batman-vs-superman-gal-gadot-seen-filming-wonder-womandiana-prince-scenes-other-day/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Audience Approval and potential misunderstanding
I have some suggestions for the "Critical Response" section. First, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that online audience ratings should not be used, due to their vulnerability to fraud. Can someone delete the bit on the Rotten Tomatoes audience score?

Second, the section begins, "[BvS] received praise for its visual spectacle[...]", which might be misleading, as a majority of this section talks about criticisms. Could it be re-worked to begin more objectively with the aggregates, and keep the details (both positive and negative) in the later paragraphs?

Zett27 (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The 'Audience Score' portion of Rotten Tomato's is actually quite positive. It's the critics section that is slamming it. It's not an 'audience response' nor 'online audience ratings,' btw, part of it is, but the part that is referred to on Wikipedia is exclusively the critics ratings. Critics need to fulfill specific criteria, they aren't just random punters who make an account and vote. This significantly sets it apart from the specifications requisite in the MOS as listed. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

CinemaScore should be included when discussing audience response as it is an exit poll taken at theatres across the US and is not open to fraud like online polls may be. BvS received a solid B CinemaScore from audiences leaving the theatre and this should be reflected in the wiki article as a counter point to one-sided the critical response and the overall negative tone throughout this wiki article. The general consensus across audience score aggregators is that BvS was more positively than negatively received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RatioEtScientia (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)