Talk:Canceled Superman films

Clean-Up!
This article has interesting info, but as written, a lot of it clearly violates Verifiability. Flipping from past to present tense doesn't help it any, either. --Mr Wind-Up Bird &#9992; 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The Kevin Smith section seems like some sort of joke or hoax. If someone doesn't come in and provide cites I'm going to chop whole sections. Ashmoo 06:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kevin Smith section has its source in the An Evening With Keven Smith DVD. He talks about Superman Lives and his involvement in it there.
 * Regardless, the change in tense is confusing and inappropriate. The page is difficult to read overall. --Ben iarwain 09:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the tenses and ridiculous overlinking. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As did I. 72.200.147.16 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. I deleted the Braniac link no less than seven times throughout my cleanup of this page, as well as several others. Additionally, this entire article reads as if it were cpied off of a webpage. At the very least, one must try to make this look like it wasn't copied verbatum from some movie page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The present tense gives it a more energetic feel, and more people will want to read it.

Yes but that's not the style that we used at Wikipedia - --Charlesknight 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People don't come to Wiki for entertainment, if they wanted that they could just pick up the movie, book, comic, news article, etc. Wiki is an encyclopedia, it should read like one. Bignole 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's online; it should read more exciting. 72.200.147.16 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think Jon Peters is overlinked. Could some tidy up just that part, please? 72.200.147.16 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Being online does mean that it should be any less than what it is, an encyclopedia. The benefit is that you can have links to other topics, instead of having to fish through pages. There is a style of writing required for everything and this one is not correct. Bignole 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now do you believe me, anon editor? This is much better now. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, why is there still a main article for Bat vs Supe? It's a movie that was never created, and never got off the ground. It should all be incorporated into this article. Bignole

Delete! Delete!
I tried to clean this thing up, but I now think it needs to be deleted. It has no focus or citations, it's riddled with POV, and it makes a lot of unverifiable claims and accusations. This thing needs to be wiped. Whatever is useful from it should be made into a section of the Superman Returns article. Chris Griswold 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's about 10 times longer than it needs to be (full summaries of every draft?), but it's an interesting article. The "unverifiable" claims will probably always remain unverified by primary sources, but it boils down to a summary of reportage/anecdotes from Ain't It Cool, An Evening With Kevin Smith, and on-line available drafts; those sources can theoretically be properly cited.  Chris Stangl 08:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this? myself and others can attempt further clean-up over the next 3-4 days however then we will dicuss it further and we then try and decide together about the best way forward be that AFD or merge?
 * The summaries need to be condensed into one section, noting the minor differences between them. --Chris Griswold 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesknight 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My thought is that it doesn't need it's own page. Someguy and I have discuss converging this page, the Batman vs. Superman page (which doesn't either) and any information about bringing Superman to the big screen again into one page. There is no need for them to have their own pages, they were never made. Then, we can go and remove uncited information, or find where it was sourced. Bignole 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the best bet. --Chris Griswold 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed with 'Someguy' and he agrees also. There is a section in the Superman Returns page, about Kevin Smith, which really has not place there. His movie wasn't made and shouldn't be part of the SR page. I think we need to find a good title for new article, one that best represents the situation, and then start by bringing everything in (maybe in the talk page) and sorting out the order first. Then, from there find the sources for everything, and if they don't exist then we trash what isn't cited. Any thoughts? Bignole 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unproduced Superman sequels? --Chris Griswold 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um..I was thinking something a bit broader. Cause some of them were produced, just never filmed. They shelled out 50mill for this picture, but never filmed a drop. Something like: (and this is an example) Superman V: The Road To The Silver Screen. Something like that, but not, because that sounds more like an newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. But something that can incorporate all the information. Cause Batman vs. Superman wouldn't be just a Superman sequel. Bignole 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Canceled Superman films? --Chris Griswold 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that one a bit better. Bignole 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of 'Canceled Superman films'. Skybunny 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving and then cutting most of the fancrft on this page would probably be a better tack. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is kind of the plan, though I think a little research should be done to verify what is fanbased and what is actual. What is your opinion on the page title that Chris suggested? Bignole 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't like the idea. I mean, if there's a page on The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, why not one on Superman Lives? _72.200.147.16 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because TMWKDQ is one [unfilmed/unfinished/cancelled/unproduced/whatever you'd like to call it] film, "Superman Lives" is a collection (upon a quick review, it looks like 7-ish) of [unfilmed/unfinished/cancelled/unproduced/whatever you'd like to call it] films. The title of "Superman Lives" sholuldn't be applied to all of them.  What seems to be discussed here is more of a move than a delete - a move to Cancelled Superman films (which I, by the way, support).  It makes sense, as does reducing the article to whatever can be cited. 82.82.164.164 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My professional opinion? The page is fine. No use in trashing the whole thing. I've been a lurker for quite a while, and I've seen the way these things usually tend to go, but I find stuffing this type of article into a Dumpster (the idea you suggest above) would bring about an ignominous end to a team effort. This article is a patchwork quilt of a thing, defying all attempts to place it. I, for one, will reprove any other users if they attempt to can this article. This is not the first time I've seen this happen, but, please; let it be the last. Do not let this come to pass. Thank you. This is Wumbo, signing out. Wumbo 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Alert: Citation Tags Needed!
I went through the article and removed all the, , and tags. I think basically the entire article needs citation, and the tag (which is still there, at the very top of the page) is useful in those cases. I believe using to describe a wholesale lack of sources is recommended Wikipedia policy, I'm just not sure which specific policy. --Gpollock 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On Constant Reversions
Dudes, the current article has the correct format. I'll comply with group discussion, but I'd like to be a part of it before any other reversions happen. OK? Thanks! Wumbo 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In case the above wasn't noticed, you could have participated. You chose to stick with your unreferenced and POV version. The current state of the article is far better than your version, and all the above agrees. And since you're the one reverting to your version before the fixes, you're in no position to complain about others stopping you. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to ask, but what all above? I don't see a discussion up there? Or maybe there never was one? *gasp* What a thought? But, of course, we know no lie would ever occur under the watchful eye of Someguy0830! It's about as possible as my voice being loaded with sarcasm right now! Hmph. Like that'll ever happen. 72.200.147.16 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: That wasn't a personal attack, just so you know... 72.200.147.16 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was rather snive and rude, and not a place for this discussion. They did take place, to answer you. It was discussed how the original article was covered in POV and had no cites. Secondly, there is no point to have separate pages for films that were never made, especially when they all have the same premise. As it stands now, it is looking much better and closer to being almost completely NPOV, which is wiki rules. It needs cites. If you cannot find the cites then that info will be removed. Also, stop putting an infobox. This is not a film, this is a list of films that never were. You can't have an infobox for half a dozen films, you would just have a cluttered infobox and that isn't what it is for. Bignole 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Infobox has been removed, Boss. Wumbo 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, but you keep reverting the page and when you do you are adding the infobox. Bignole 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll keep that in mind...but would someone please correct the title? Cancelled has TWO L's, not one. Thanks! Wumbo 01:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it only has 1 "L" Bignole 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I think it works either way, but I feel that having two L's is more aesthetically pleasing. Wumbo 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion and everyone is entitled to it. The point is, either one is correct. Bignole 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Work
Ok, so not only does the page need a lot more cites, but it needs something else. Right now it is a little bland. It needs something else to spruce it up and make it look more professional, instead of like a memo. Nothing fake. If that photo from the original page is authentic then that could be used, in the appropriate section. Also, I glanced at those external links. Some look to be links to information from the text. If that's true (like I saw a link to Harry Knowles review of Abbrams script) then there are a couple of your references right there, they need just be cited in the sections. Bignole


 * That's what I was trying to do when I kept reverting it back to the present tense. Now, that was a real sprucer-upper. Thing is, the minute I changed all the tenses (which is what had been requested of me, of course), I realized that the article looked, for all the world, BORING. However, I didn't want to change it for fear of being attacked again by some over-excitable users, so it was left as-was. With your permission, I'd be happy to spruce up the article--with your permission, of course. I answer only to you, Boss, only to you. Be seeing you! Wumbo 03:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, how do you pronounce your user name? Wumbo 03:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much an observer on this page at the moment (I made a few fixes). I have to say the version at the time of writing is looking unbelievably much better than it was a week ago. Well done to whoever helped fix that up. Wumbo: Sorry, but present tense isn't appropriate in this (or any) encyclopedia. I saw it earlier when it was saying "Next, Tim Burton gets the next script and starts editing it." - As Bignole pointed out, this looks like a memo. So let's keep it in past tense. The current format is good. I'm thinking of adding a "summary" section with a table which lists each version's start and end date, director, writer and a one-sentence plot summary, though I do like reading the full text of these movies, as it presently stands. Also, can we get back some of those S logo pictures that were on here before? Why are there no pictures now? Anyway good work guys. --EatMyShortz 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
Shouldn't this be under Cancelled Superman films? Both spellings are correct, but the double-l is used in the category and all similar pages I know of. Ace of Sevens 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The spellings are irrelevant. If you wish to redirect that double "L" to the single "L" page, that would be fine. There isn't a point to move it when they are both right. Bignole 23:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too much of a hassle to fix now (thank Wumbo) and the redirect exists. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Bignole

section "Brett Ratner and Ain't it Cool News"
Horribly POV. It needs to be rewritten or removed quickly. violet/riga (t) 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Violetriga has fixed the issue. Bignole 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is ok to delete sections you add if it becomes obvious that it's just some anon's POV vandalism. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with any guideline that states if no one responds you can delete it. They weren't correcting vandalism, they was correcting a section that was just POV. I mean, if someone adds a lot of POV repeatedly then I would call that vandalism, especially if they know it is wrong. But I don't think Wiki considers adding POV in general to be vandalism, even if they aren't a registered user. Bignole 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing against it either. Vandalism is malicious in nature. Cutting one's own comment after posting it isn't. This user simply posted a comment in error and corrected her mistake. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They posted a comment explaining that a section had huge POV and needed rewriting. They decided to fix it themselves and then decided to delete the information on the Talk Page. The principle is that they informed other editors of their changes, yet when they changed them, they decided to remove it. The other editors should know that such a change was made, especially when it isn't just reverting vandalism. If it was vandalous that is one thing, but it's clear it wasn't malicious in nature. Since it wasn't like they added POV to the article and it was immediately reverted, it really wasn't vandalism. Other people had edited since that particular one. Also, they didn't realize they made a mistake. Their "edit summary" stated "fixed", not "oops my bad", or something like that. It's a principle behind the situation. They removed information that told other editors about a big edit that was being made. Now, it's gone from something small to a debate about whether you can or should delete a comment left on a Talk Page if no one responds to it. Bignole 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Article edit summary "rv. anon POV" tells you all you needed to know, thus the comment here was not necessary and could be removed (having only been here for <3 minutes and without reply). violet/riga (t) 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that tells you all you needed to know then why even add something to the Talk Page here? The point is it isn't common practice to remove information from a Talk Page, no matter how long it's been there. This isn't your user talk page, it is for the article. It is obviously very trivial, but the point is if we start doing that then we will have people removing other sections of talk pages and using you as their example. Bignole
 * Because that edit was made after the comment here. And you are giving a slippery slope argument that really won't happen - removing other peoples' comments is wrong, and I didn't come close to that.  violet/riga (t) 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Proposal
If we really want to get this page cleaned up, I propose we submit it for partial protection. It's hard enough trying to clean the page and make it professional when you have tons of GIPU fanboys coming in with their POV to wreck havoc upon the page. Bignole 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt we'd get it. They're too sporadic to justify protection. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page is spelled wrong.
It's true. Cancelled has two l's, not one. However, we can't move it, because there already IS a "Cancelled Superman films" article, which is a redirect to this article. Can we just brute this thing ('brute' = move a page by copying text rather than using the "move" function), since there is no other possible way to do this? Seriously, I'm tired of these muthaf***in' misspellings on this muthaf***in' plane... I mean title. FloaterFluss (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the word in the dictionary, you can spell it either way. It's about preference. I point you to Canceled and Cancelld Bignole 17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cancelled = English spelling;Canceled = American spelling. Along the lines of colour/color, centre/center and jewellery/jewelry. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Vaughn
Michael Vaughn was attached before Bryan Singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.111.61 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, please don't add him unless you have a source. We have enough unverified claims already.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Following removed
The following was removed today from this page (I have no opinion either way):


 * This link may be of some use as a guide (but not an actual source) if this article ever gets the royal treatment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

folks
After taking a bit of time to find this very good bit of new info, why does somebody need to feel the need to remove eveyerthing except what is not in bold (below). Even the citation. Delete everything relevant - makes sense. So I undo it, of course.

During a promotional interview for Ghost Rider (film) in early 2007, Cage spoke of the canceled Superman film he was due to star in. "I was going to play Superman for a bit and for whatever reasons the movie fell apart. When I saw the new Superman I realised that, while I liked the movie and I really liked Brandon Routh, it was a much more traditional, nostalgic portrayal. I was going to turn the character on his ear and try to do something new with it." Whataboutbob 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Whataboutbob 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be civil in your interactions with other editors. However, your quote could have been trimmed down to the last sentence.  Besides, there's a Superman film series article that's being developed on a subpage that will replace this fanboy-oriented article.  Don't worry, this article's time is near. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)