Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 3

Who decided the 'Official name'?
I was wondering, since when was DC Universe the 'official name' of this franchise? I have heard nothing regarding this decision. Anyone else confused? This will likely be changed back to how it was until WB/DC Films releases an official name of some kind.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In IP claimed it with falsified reference titles as alleged support.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DC_Extended_Universe&diff=prev&oldid=819734366] I have reverted it.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DC_Extended_Universe&diff=821367379&oldid=821367240] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hamada, Nong and Johns
These are the main three now running the universe, but unless stated, that does not make them actual producers on the films. When Johns and Berg were promoted, they were only given a producer role on Justice League as part of it. They oversaw the development and production of Aquaman and Shazam! without any producer credits (not even an executive credit in Shazam's case).

Walter Hamada has now inherited Berg's executive role, similar to his previous role at New Line for which he was credited solely as an executive producer. Nong will work on development and production management of the films, which is not the same as being a producer. She was credited as "executive in charge of production" on her previous work and has zero producer credits on feature films.

None of the reports mention them serving as actual producers, so listing them in this role for every future film seems like WP:CRYSTAL. As of now, this is not a Kevin Feige situation, just a continuation of the original "overseer" committee that was established in May 2016. Prefall 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree for reasons I stated here. You are incorrect in stating that Johns and Berg would only be Producers on Justice League as originally the plan was for them to serve as producers on every future film. Furthermore, | this article discusses how the franchise's shakeup on the production side may affect Johns' producing credits on future films in the franchise. There is no solid answer to this yet. Charles Roven even discusses his beliefs that producing the films needs to not be left to "one person", which is why there is that leadership switch-up at WB for the DC Films and its production. As such, Hamada is head of production - he will produce and oversee all future films | that will be released. As such, you cannot change a page's format just because you disagree. There is no consensus about this - as the current format reflects the studios' current in-flux status.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Emmerich stated that Hamada will work alongside Johns. Even if he were removed, that would not affect his credit on Aquaman, as it had already wrapped principal photography when he was still in charge. Hollywood Reporter specifically stated that Johns and Berg "will become producers on the Justice League movies", with no indication of them serving in that specific role on future films. That, along with Hamada's announcement only stating that he will oversee production—which is not the same as producing—is my concern. Without sources stating that they will produce, it is WP:CRYSTAL. Prefall  02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just remembered this Charles Roven interview, where he lists the Wonder Woman II producers and does not include Johns or Berg. This was in November 2017, prior to Justice Leagues release, so they were still in charge at that time. It doesn't seem like them being producers on every future film was the plan. Prefall'  02:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Until the studio definitively clarifies things on there various films currently in development - and their leadership switch-up, which may or may not be over; doing WP:OriginalResearch isn't going to help the article in any way. The 'in development' films are likely to change various times. Johns and Berg were meant to be 'the Kevin Feige of the DCEU'. Due to Justice League under-performing critically and financially, DC Films is changing their direction. Until this is clarified I think it's much easier to leave the page as-is. Hamada and Nong at this point are President and VP of the studio and will be heavily involved with and 'oversee' production. As far as the media's concerned overseeing production means key producer, as that is what a producer does. It's that simple. If and when the studio says otherwise - then we should definitely change the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit baffled how you can quote WP:OR given your argument, . Producer credits have always been treated on a film-to-film basis. Marvel happens to announced Feige as its only producer whenever the films are announced, so that's an easy add. But Hamada, Nong, and Johns have not all been confirmed to be producers of a majority of the films being released. Simply inferring that, since they're running the universe they would have producer credits, is about as original as research gets. You're applying the logic of the MCU's producer credits, which is also a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Until it's specified that these three will be listed as producers, and not executive producers or other unspecified credits, there is no reason to include them here, as it's not actively backed by reliable sources. Sock   ( tock talk)  16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Until the studio definitively clarifies things on there various films currently in development - and their leadership switch-up, which may or may not be over; doing WP:OriginalResearch isn't going to help the article in any way." — This is the perfect argument against listing them as producers on every film. If something is unclear and not supported by sources, leaving it in the article and waiting until it is contradicted is not a good strategy. Simply put, until they are verified as being actual producers on the individual films, this fails core Wikipedia policy. Prefall  18:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this completely. I didn't site Kevin Feige as original research. That is what the articles published and the press releases stated. Placing information on the 'in development' sections/chart as the information comes a long is the approach. Once information changes or is contradicted - then it can be changed. That's my argument. Nothing has been stated that takes away from Johns' position as producer on all future films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole crux of this discussion is that none of the citations in the article state that Hamada, Nong, or Johns will be producers. You need to provide sources that corroborate this. Prefall  05:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will find the articles that state exactly what I stated above^. Berg and Johns were originally hired to be Warner Bros.' DC Films' version of Kevin Feige - a unified overarching story within the series overseen by their unified production credits. | Here, it states: "With Berg and Johns, Warner Bros. is attempting to unify the disparate elements of the DC movies with a seasoned film exec and a comics veteran that together hopefully can emulate the way Marvel Studios has produced its films under the vision of president Kevin Feige. But sources also say Warner still wants to remain a filmmaker-driven studio." That's exactly what I stated earlier. Additionally, it states that: "Sources say it was Suicide Squad that escalated Johns’ involvement in DC movies (he was already co-writing the next Batman stand-alone with Affleck), and he is involved in the film’s postproduction." The production/producer/film President shuffle originally occurred back with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, not just Justice League that we keep talking about. I will continue to search for the articles I read, that were created for the studios' official stance on this debate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * | Variety continues on from this theme with discussions of how the DCEU and DC Films is changing yet again due to Justice League and its mild-at-best reception: "Berg and Johns were intimately involved in the production. Berg essentially decamped for the film’s London set, and both men have full producer credits on the picture, which would likely not be the case on future movies. Justice League suffered from a difficult birth...." There are numerous articles that state similar. Berg will no longer be co-Runner of the franchise, nor will he be co-Chairman of the studio. Similarly he will no longer serve as producer of any DCEU films, and Johns' role as producer is in question.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That tidbit by THR is promising—though the paragraph ends by stating "As part of their new jobs, Berg and Johns will become producers on the Justice League movies." The lack of other producing credits nearly two years after the fact makes me doubt the comparison to Feige. Prior to Justice League's release, they were not producers on Aquaman nor slated to be on Wonder Woman II (per Roven). That isn't quite the Feige approach.
 * Regardless, if you're going to use that cite in the meantime, I would still recommend removing Nong as producer. Her role is vastly different than that of Hamada and Johns, as I covered in my opening comment. Prefall  18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Prefall, the problem with this discussion are each of these films are in the 'development' stages of a production. Because of this the only solid information is what has been reported at one point or another. Just because Roven didn't mention someone by name - really means nothing at this point. The studio is currently rearranging their leadership and production team for all future movies. I would say that the chart should stay the same until any solid and declarative information is released - on a film-by-film case. For example, Flashpoint could go into production tomorrow and the revelation be that none of the previously attached producers will continue to be a part of the film. If that's the case we can change it once that information is given. At this point, nothing that is included is incorrect. Nong is the second-half of the duo the studio hired to replace Berg. Because of this the credit should remain unless it is stated otherwise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Krypton
The series seems to be unofficially placed either inside or outside of the DCEU, as perhaps they're taking a "Legion with the X-Men film universe" approach in that producers want to first see if it is successful. As far as I am aware, the showrunner has been vague and non-declarative about the situation one way or another. A recent interview seems to imply that Krypton will be set during an 'alternate timeline' -where Brainiac goes to the past to prevent Superman's existence. Every article out there has mentioned that the show will be direct response to the warm reception of the planet's portrayal in Man of Steel, with the creator/producer/writer, David S. Goyer saying that it takes place before Man of Steel. It could be argued that he used that as an analogy of when the time-period will be, but it could also be quite literal. Does anyone have a reference stating one way or the other? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless it get stated explicitly to be in the same universe or has the strong implication to be so (such as having the same actors), I'd say no to adding it anywhere.★Trekker (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Split
This article is becoming massively bloated with the list of films. Anyone support making a List of DC Extended Universe films (or something similar)? JOE BRO  64  21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have made it a redirect to this article for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this page is only about a list of films, so it doesn't make sense to try and split that into multiple places. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This page isn't just a list of films; it's about the creation, marketing, box office, and reception of the franchise as a whole. If we don't eventually split it, it's just going to become listcruft. The MCU page was much smaller when it got split. JOE BRO  64  15:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What's making this page look like listcruft is the ridiculous number of movies that are apparently in development (eighteen!), that have all been given their own section. --  Alex TW 12:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alex. I'd actually remove the entirety of the "In development" listing, and simply put the information down as prose, along with a couple sentences covering the major points. The remaining info should be at the character's "other media" section on their article, or their "in other media" article. All of these films in this section do not have a release date, so they are nothing more than potential projects, so they shouldn't be highlighted as if they are 100% going to happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of these "in development" film seem like just ideas floating around. They should not be treated as products in pre-production. No need to list them all individually.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Remove the section and list the important details in prose in a "Films in development" section, or similar. No table is required for the undated films either. --  Alex TW 05:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article definitely puts too much emphasis on "in development" projects, of which are in constant flux. Agree with trimming the entire section down to just a few paragraphs covering the key points. Prefall  16:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at your points, I'd also agree with removing most of the in development section and placing it into prose and at the respective characters' articles. JOE BRO  64  00:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- This page is nowhere near as 'bloated' as the MCU's page. This page is solely based on films and so a separate page that is only a list about them would be pointless.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't make any sense. JOE BRO  64  00:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with . Saying we shouldn't fix one page because of another makes absolutely zero sense. --  Alex TW 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TheJoebro64, I corrected my edit so that it makes sense. To create page about a list of movies, within a film series - when this page already has that is superfluous. User:AlexTheWhovian, drawing comparison to other "like"-pages does make sense. We don't need to create a second page, just because the series/studio has multiple films planned.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REDACT, if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Please make sure that you edit your comments properly. And I disagree with the split as well, but drawing a likeness to another article is irrelevant. The MCU page actually does already have multiple articles, but that's only because there is so much content. DCEU is only a minimal franchise at this current time. --  Alex TW 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

DEFINITELY oppose deleting an important section about the series. Each of the films listed within the "In development" section are currently in active development. Just because you think the number of them is large, doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed as is. The studio is ambitious and that doesn't sit right with some of you, so you think they should be deleted. That's hilarious and opinion-based. Who are we to say something like "a studio cannot have so many film in development...." That is considered personal research and completely against Wikipedia guidelines. Just because a studio has multiple films in development, doesn't mean that we as editors can judge whether they're important or not..--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides that, this page's focus isn't purely based on the films released or with dates. The DCEU has taken a different approach to its shared universe than others. They have multiple (obviously) films in various stages of development. The point is none of these films are just ideas, but have been officially announced to be in development with producers, directors, and screenwriters all attached variously to each of them. It would be pointless to make a prose that summarizes the films, when each film has a history of its progress, and different filmmakers attached. No, the focus of the section is on the process of those films. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to shout, we can hear you. No-one is saying we should delete it completely. We're not saying that they can't have all of those films in development. We are simply merge all of the separate sections into one, and move the less trivial content to the article for the character in question. It doesn't matter if the "studio is ambitious" - Wikipedia runs on its own rules, so yes, it is up to us as editors to judge what's important enough to get their own separate sections. Not all of them are in active development, they may have screenwriters and directors attached, but for most of them, that's it, and not all of them have producers, directors, and screenwriters attached - four of them don't even have a director, story or a screenwriter! They are not films, as they don't exist yet, and they have minimal history as it is. --  Alex TW 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many films in development by studios start out without a director attached. To merge the section only serves your personal opinions and preference. It does nothing constructive to the page as each of them yes has producers, each of the yes is in active development (just different stages), and yes each of them has been confirmed by the studio. If you're stating that you want to get rid of the jump-link headers that makes sense. If you're saying that you want to get rid of film information that tells the development history - that does not make sense. Wikipedia runs by its own rules, and yes editors are to determine what's important on the page. This entire page is about a film series and its respective movies. Therefor to delete information regarding them is destructive. Films can take years to develop to the filming stage. Some editor tried to argue a month ago that the Lobo film should be removed because it had been a while since an update was available. Then the very next week, the studio stated that they are courting Michael Bay to direct it. We are not in the need-to-know of a studio, nor does anyone on this site understand how all the ins and outs of filmmaking. We are not in position to sit here and say "well this page is just too big for a film series!" That is not our place. Opinion-based edits are not valid, and yes that includes starting a section about the page having a lot of films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If you keep making personal attacks, and saying that we are suggestion this as it "only serves your personal opinions and preference", then no editor will discuss with you when a consensus is formed and you still disagree, especially since you are the only editor doing so. It doesn't matter what stages of development they are in. They are movies that have been planned but very little else. Yes, those that are in actual development are likely to get more detail when listed in prose. I am not saying I want to "get rid of film information that tells the development history", so I very strongly suggest that you stop putting words in my mouth, and strike that comment out. Nobody is deleting any information. They are summarizing it in a more fashionable sense, to prevent the continued bloat of this article. Lobo doesn't matter here. If that case happened after it had been converted to prose, then the director would have simply been added to the prose. The in-development films do not currently contribute to the film series as it exists, they are simply ideas to expand it that have not yet come to fruition. Your personal opinion has been duly noted (funny how you argue about opinion then go on about your own, as if you WP:OWN this article), but you are the only one with the belief you hold. You do not own this talk page either - so you do not get to state what sections editors can and cannot start on this talk page. Got that? --  Alex TW 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * User:AlexTheWhovian, I have never had any bones to pick with you in the past. You are generally collaborative and yes you are constructive to Wikipedia as a whole. I'm saying the arguments of "wow, this studio has 18 movies?!" as a basis for why this section needs to change is unfounded. What I'm saying is a film studio and its film series can have as many projects actively in development as they want. The in-development films, many of them - if you read the sections and/or follow their developments - are in the process of being written, finding a director, etc. This can take years; i.e.: take a look at the Avatar movies. They've had their writer/director/producer but it's taken a decade to move to filming. The studio only recently rearranged and changed their leadership. Now that they have their S*tuff together, things will change in the development stages too. I do not assume to WP:OWN this article, as I don't own anything here and nor does any other editor, so accusatory statements like that are not helpful to the discussion. I changed the formatting as you all pushed for, but then you reverted the edit. I'm trying to be collaborative, but all I'm saying is that editors have no place in stating what can and can't be done by a studio. Bottom line, we're all a bunch of individuals sitting behind our personal computer screens choosing to argue about formatting of a Wikipedia page. I have no beef with you, I just think that things can get a little to nit-picky when we start putting restrictions on film studios that are working on their film projects. Do you "Got that?"--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Our past is irrelevant, but thanks for bringing it up. It's mostly because we've agreed, but every editor with another disagrees at some point.
 * Again, nobody is saying "wow, this studio has 18 movies?!" is the reason for the change. It's the bloat and expanded needless material that has come with these 18 movies, that's what has prompted this. They can have as many as they want, yes. We just need to learn how to adapt Wikipedia articles as a result of this. If the studio have 53 movies in development, would you suggest that every one of them should have its own section? Where do we draw the line? Where we draw it is at the point where editors agree that a change is required, which is clearly the case in this discussion.
 * If it's going to take years for the films to find their relevant crews, then that is further support on requiring a change to the bloated sections. We can't keep out-of-date material on upcoming films when no further information is added. For example, since you're keen on relating to other pages, there were several television series in development for the MCU, but no further news was released on them, so they were moved to a separate section.
 * You believe that "things will change in the development stages too", but you have no proof or source backing this up - again, your personal opinion. You did not change the formatting as we suggested. We've suggested that the bloat be severely minimized by re-writing the 18 sections into 1 section of prose, and then keeping the excess content by moving it to the separate articles for each character that the films are related to. What you did was violate delete a tiny bit of information and try to sneakily hide the headers in violation of WP:PSEUDOHEAD, just so that you could keep all of your content but hide the headers in the table of contents. So, no, you did nothing of the sort.
 * Nobody is saying what can and can't be done by the studio, nobody is putting restrictions on film studios. (Is anyone else getting serious déjà vu, or am I just repeating myself?) What we're saying is we can have a say on how it is presented in a Wikipedia article.
 * Nobody is arguing over it, nobody except one person: you. Everyone agreed that the changes are required, then you came on "behind your personal computer screen" and decided to make a mountain out of a molehill. --  Alex TW 14:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no rhyme or reason to belittle editors that disagree with you. Just because I'm the only one who has spoken up about it, doesn't mean that every other editor agrees with your argument. You want to remove all films that are even close to being filmed/production dates, and summarize them all in one paragraph. How anyone will affectively do that is beyond my comprehension. I can back up 'changes in development' as it is an ongoing occurrence with the studio (DC Films), not to mention the entire franchise and WB's subsidiary mentioned has very recently changed leadership. If you really need a reference for that, why not juts read the article? There's plenty of it. A studio could have "53 movies in development" as you exaggerated, and yes if they're green-lit and "In development" as the section is titled, they would need to be referenced/listed/etc. I did not "sneakily" do anything as you stated. Old/outdated information was removed, and the section was condensed. The "mountain" you reference seems to be the several paragraphs you typed to my response. The "molehill" in this situation is the franchise's upcoming films. You have no position to talk down to other editors (i.e.: myself). Disagreeing on Wikipedia content doesn't mean you can be derogatory to others.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I recommend you take that suggestion on instead of saying that editors are basically trying to destroy this article and control the studio. Actually, I've had five editors agree with the fact that a change is required, so yes, every other editor that's not you has agreed. I'm going to give up on this discussion, because I'm beating my head against a brick wall by repeating myself so often - no-one is deleting information, no-one is removing films, no-one is ruining the article! Nobody said one paragraph. It could be five. Again, putting words into our mouths. Their leadership is irrelevant, so please, keep bringing that up. Yes, it there was 53 movies in development, they can be referenced and listed. No, they would not need their own separate sections. I really am repeating myself here... Anyone else seeing this? You did not condense the section. You violated PSEUDOHEAD by trying to hide the table of contents. Exactly the same content was listed, with a few tiny changes. No, what you did was try to force your edits while a discussion about the very issue at hand was still going. The mountain was this: DEFINITELY oppose deleting an important section about the series. If you find yourself gaining the agreement of other editors that there is no change required, then I look forward to discussing with them. Until then, there is agreement that the section can have its subsections removed and its contents condensed, and so these edits will go ahead. Remember: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. --  Alex TW 11:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Trimming
As there is sufficient support and insufficient disagreement for trimming the section about films in development, does somebody want to convert this to prose and put it forth as a suggestion? What important points should we keep, and what should be moved to the character articles? --  Alex TW 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The resulting section should look very similar to this Collider article. I'd be happy to give a go at trimming if I have time over the next couple of days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AlexTheWhovian, your responses to my comments are hilariously demeaning and quite petty. Every editor on Wikipedia definitely doesn't agree with you, nor do they need to. Your argumentative nature is unbecoming and pious. You create mountains out of anyone who doesn't agree with you, so climb your Everest and plant your Whovian-ville flag firmly into that hillside. We all aspire to be you...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, User:Favre1fan93 I look forward to seeing what you come up with.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They all agree with the discussion on this talk page. That's all that's needed. Chill, take a deep breath, no more bold shouting? By the way, Whoville is the Grinch, different franchise. --  Alex TW 01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AlexTheWhovian - Yeah, you're absolutely right every editor on the cyberspace of the world wide web both with usernames and those without definitely agree with you. No, that's inaccurate. Two editors agree with you. That definitely confirms your theory... By the way, I didn't know the Time Lord, Doctor Who, wasn't from Dr. Seuss' world of little creatures that live on snowflakes!...*sarcasm* My previous comment was satire at your holier than thou analogies regarding mountains.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the references: Doctor Who = Dr. Seuss, Doctor Who = Whoville.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It was 4. 2) Do try to give WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA a read, and stop beating a dead horse. Want to discuss the actual topic at hand now? --  Alex TW 15:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I've only briefly skimmed over this discussion, so excuse me if it's a conclusion that we've already reached, but I thought I'd support this idea anyway: I've thought for a while the section on films in development is far too long. These films are just in development, it isn't confirmed they will be filmed. There's no time frame. They can still be mentioned briefly, but I think List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is a good model. So I'm in support of a trim. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It has now been two weeks without any movement here, so I decided to take a hatchet to the fluff and see what we're left with. Here is the result:

While much cleaner, it still may be too much depending on your stance. Is this chronological list format good or should it be re-written to more summary style? Prefall 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support this - it's so much cleaner than the section in the article currently. If this list format is used, perhaps dot points could further help clarity? I'm of the opinion this is still pretty large and should ideally be summarised more. That said, I don't know what you'd cut out at this point - I might give it a go. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a crack at this. I was hoping to get to something but I've been busy off-wiki to be unable to devote time to it. I agree with that this is a good new place to start, but maybe could be reduced more (like them, I don't know what else you could cut from it). I don't have an issue with it being chronological, but bullets could help some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a little more trimming and added bullet points. Diff There are a few more things that could be cut—such as the brief mention of pre-DCEU development of Lobo—but beyond that, it is about as bare-bones as it can get without a re-write. The main focus of the proposed section is production milestones, such as hirings/dropouts of key positions, new castings, script submissions, and scheduled production dates. Certain material that has been excluded is reported story beats, role reprisals, and other such information. Prefall  23:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really like this. I've gone ahead and did a bit of small c/e to your example (Diff) but all in all, I support this and feel we should add it into the article. Good work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to the trimmed content in the collapsed heading above? If not, I think it should be implemented (other small amounts of c/e can obviously happen from there if needed). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone who participated in the discussion prior to this point for further comments. Pre  fall  20:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the hidden version, without the headers for each film in development.★Trekker (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The only thing I suggest is making it with the divcol template. JOE BRO  64  21:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With the default two columns? I wouldn't mind it but I can definitely see people thinking that it makes it look overstuffed. Also, I forgot to ping earlier. Sorry!  Pre  fall  21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support it as well. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and implement this. If anyone wants to do small adjustments afterwards, please be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of response, I don't actually have this page on my watchlist, just got the ping. The trimmed version looks far' better - great job! It's a yes from me. --  Alex TW'' 04:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Walter Hamada producer on Shazam??
On Walter Hamada's wikipedia page it says that the next movie Hamada is producing is Shazam. So, why does the table say that only Safran is the producer of Shazam??Phoenix (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording on his article is misleading. Per Shazam!s production press release from February 2018, Safran is the sole producer and Hamada is not credited (as of then, anyway). Prefall'  20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This however is in contradiction to the 'welcome to the DCEU' message from Johns to Hamada, when Hamada joined the production team - in which he stated that working with him on Shazam was going to be the start of all their future film productions together. Better to wait until the release of the film, so as to clear up that quandary.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

can someone explain the removed content
may i know why the information about the first two attempt to start the cinematic universe is removed from the development section (superman lives and green lantern starting the universe etc)? is it not notable to be included? or lack of sources? -155.69.160.38 (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed them over a year ago due to lack of reliable sourcing. The Superman Lives portion stated that Keaton was to reprise his role as Batman in the film to establish a shared universe, with only this citation—however, that just has Keaton denying his involvement as Batman and states nothing else about a possible shared universe. The Green Lantern and unproduced Flash crossover was more interesting, but the only source was this alleged leaked script that originated from Superheromovienews.com, which does not seem reliable.
 * If any new sources have emerged since then (or any that I've missed) please share them. Pre  fall  04:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This CBR article mentions that Green Lantern was supposed to start a shared universe. According to it, Amanda Waller would have been that universe's equivalent to Nick Fury in the MCU. JOE BRO  64  22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Separate Harley Quinn project"
She explicitly refers to the next Harley project as being "separate" from Gotham City Sirens and the Joker/Harley film, not stating that she is working on an entirely new project. I'm not sure how this small detail got twisted in such a way. Here are direct quotes from the cited November 2017 interview:
 * "Would you definitely produce the next incarnation of Harley on the screen?" She responds, "Yeah, I've been working on it for two years now. I mean, it's hard to talk about it because all of this stuff is under lock and key, but yeah, no, I've been working on a separate spinoff Harley thing for a while now."
 * The "separate project" mention is a direct answer towards the next Harley film, which we now know is Birds of Prey. Robbie has been confirmed as being a producer on the project, that has been in development since at least November 2016.
 * That leads into the next question: "There has been talk of the Joker/Harley film and the Gotham City Sirens, are those two distinct things? Are you talking about the Sirens project?" She reponds, "No, it's a totally separate one."
 * She denies that the next Harley production is either of those two films. Birds of Prey is not mentioned.
 * "What are you itching to do with that character that you weren't able to do the first time?" She responds, "I want to see her with other women. [...] She needs a little girl gang."
 * Birds of Prey is literally a gang of women.

Additionally, TheWrap reported in January 2018 (months after the interview) that there were three Harley projects in development: Birds of Prey, Suicide Squad 2, and the Joker/Harley film. As of the Birds of Prey announcement yesterday, TheWrap also noted: "Yan will not direct the "Gotham City Sirens" or "Harley vs Joker" films also in contention at Warner Bros." Either way, that separate project that we are listing is mentioned nowhere else. Pre  fall  18:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Margot Robbie has now stated that the project she was referring to was "always" Birds of Prey.   Pre  fall  01:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that you seemingly 'reached consensus' with yourself over this non-discussion. The confusing part is when she first 'announced' the film, she stated that it had been in development for 2 years. That's longer than the new statement regarding how long Birds of Prey has been in development. Regardless - there are multiple films in development that will be made. The progression of the films are the natural progression of the character. Good work on clarification here though, User:Prefall.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...What? She literally states "Meanwhile, over the course of the next few years, the studio was exploring other Harley Quinn spin-offs. But I was not a part of those versions, I was always focused on this one with Christina." and "I pitched the idea of an R-rated girl gang film including Harley, because I was like, 'Harley needs friends.' Harley loves interacting with people, so don’t ever make her do a standalone film."
 * This new interview is clear as day and did not seem like something that needed consensus or dissecting. Pre  fall  03:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blackhawk
DC Films, Warner Bros. and Spielberg jointly announced the development of a new film in the studios' slot - titled Blackhawk. It's previously been established that the Blackhawk Sqaudron exists within the DC Extended Universe. If you need a reference I will happily provide one. On top of this, all that DC Films has currently done resides under the DCEU banner, while rumors that the Joker origin film will be under a separate series remain unfounded. There is no official announcement of the film's separation; however, Blackhawk will be under the DCEU banner - at this point in time. Stating otherwise and removing it from the list of films in development is destructive and incorrect.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources stating that Hamada, Johns, or DC Films are involved in this? All of the ones that I've seen are intentionally avoiding tying it to the DCEU. This includes Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, Entertainment Weekly and DC Comics themselves.
 * I'm also not sure what you mean by the Joker film being a separate series is unfounded. Just because they have not yet officially announced the film and its separation, does not mean we can avoid what the reliable sources are stating. Every time it comes up, including the recent Joaquin Phoenix rumors, they make it clear that it will be under a yet-to-be announced Elseworlds banner. August 2017 per THR February 2018 per Variety Pre  fall  05:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While I personally think we shouldn't be branding Blackhawk as a DCEU film just yet, this post on DC's official blog does say it's set within the DC Universe. JOE BRO  64  19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It says it will be his first film centered around characters from the DC Universe (DC's entire catalog of characters); another way of saying he's joined the "world of DC", as the title of the article states. Separate note: Toby Emmerich, a WB executive, is the only other person who was interviewed as part of this press release, rather than a DC affiliate. The lack of acknowledgement of the DCEU or anyone involved in it could also suggest they simply have not decided what to do with it yet. Pre  fall  22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources see the film as in direct response to the positive Wonder Woman period-piece film reception. The studio announced being excited that Spielberg will be joining their superhero film genre - which specifically right now only includes the DCEU. If news should arise stating that it is not a part of the franchise, we can go from there. Right now, it is merely journalists speculating whether it will have direct ties to Wonder Woman. Interestingly enough, a Blackhawk Squadron recruit was in-fact in the WW film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Kitchen, which is also a DC production, is not set within the DCEU either. They could tie Blackhawk into Wonder Woman if they wish, but that is not a certainty. I don't know why we would list it here until proven otherwise when the press releases have avoided tying it to this cinematic universe in the first place. Seems WP:CRYSTAL. Pre  fall  03:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Blackhawk (again)
Alright, even though I'm not the one adding controversial content, I'll start the discussion for it. Blackhawk only source for being in the DCEU is this Syfy article. This article sources other articles from the (substantially more reliable) Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline, all of which only mention that it is a DC film, and makes no mention of any Justice League characters or any other connection to the wider universe. I don't see how this keeps getting added, but I'd like a discussion to happen so we can stop the constant back and forth of addition and removal. This is obviously just my opinion, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. Sock  ( tock talk)  22:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging users. Sock  ( tock talk)  22:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That Syfy article is clearly making a presumption. Until we get a reliable source directly confirming its connection to the DCEU, it should not be present in this article. Simply presuming that it will be set within the DCEU is not acceptable. Pre  fall  23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to start a conversation about this. To be honest, I don't think either Blackhawk or the Joker movie should be listed until we get concrete evidence they will be a part of the DCEU. With Blackhawk, just because WB hasn't said it won't be a DCEU project doesn't mean it will be (that's like saying Mario and Star Wars are in the same universe because Disney and Nintendo haven't said they aren't). The Joker stuff strikes me as just speculation. JOE BRO  64  23:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I highly disagree. Given the fact that the articles cited are assuming that there is another DC Films franchise; and given that Forbes broke the news that the Joker origin movie is actually linked to The Batman - there are not two franchises. Forbes is a reliable source and stated that news came from those involved. The articles only state that "perhaps" or "maybe" it won't be a part of the DCEU. At this point in time - there is only one franchise. It doesn't state declaratively that the film is not DCEU. Because of all of these reasons, the page should acknowledge the film. Not to mention that a member of the Blackhawk squadron has already appeared in the DCEU (i.e.: Wonder Woman).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Joker stuff is absolutely speculation, based on the quote in its cited Screenrant article. The writer stating it even stresses that it is "just a rumor". It should not be listed here either. Pre  fall  23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we know DC is planning multiple universe, with the DCEU that we already have plus some standalone ones like the Joker origin movie, there needs to be very explicit confirmation that a film will be in the DCEU to be listed here. At the moment, the sources provided only tell us that a Blackhawk movie is being made and nothing more, so that information should not be listed here. Just keep it at Blackhawk (DC Comics) for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's over-examination when we start deciding that a film studio, who with heroes based off of their comics only has one cinematic franchise. The articles stating that the Joker origin would only be in a separate franchise has not been confirmed by the studio. Furthermore, Forbes stated that someone involved with the studio/movie has made it known to them that the film will be tied to The Batman film. Matt Reeves' Batman is in the unofficially named "DCEU". I don't see how the connection and obvious placement doesn't make sense to anyone. Additionally any reports stating that Blackhawk COULD be in the 'second franchise' are speculation. There is no second film franchise. Blackhawk is DCEU, I cited my sources multiple times and each one are reliable sources.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sidenote User:190.78.59.28, User:186.167.248.64, User:186.167.251.8 and User:2804:431:d72d:27be:a162:5393:6905:dfd7 all revert edits including ones specific to this conversation without giving reason as to why they think the sources are incorrect. Because of this, there as been no real debate, nor can any of my reverts with reason/cause be construed as edit warring. Now that someone has made a comment on my talk page, and there's actual reasoning to discuss - I am engaged in the discussion here. Also one of them stated in their edit comment that I have "no respect for consensus". As is indicated by this conversation, there is no consensus at this time.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DisneyMetalhead, you are outright making information up at this point. None of those sources speculate that Blackhawk could be in a second franchise, and the only source you cited (which I challenged) references other articles that also do not say it is in the DCEU. The Syfy article is speculation and sources articles that do not back up the information it provides. I have not been following the spinoff Joker film so I don't have an opinion about that, but claiming that the article from Syfy which sources three other, more notable references and adds information from thin air is somehow more reliable than the article's own sources is like referencing a Wikipedia page and saying it's better than pulling an article from the reference list. You cited one source and there's significant doubt as to the reliability of its claim, as evidenced by several other users. And "Not to mention that a member of the Blackhawk squadron has already appeared in the DCEU" is WP:OR at worst and WP:SYNTHESIS at best. The absence of denial is not confirmation, and it never will be.
 * Sidenote, consensus or not your edits were reverted on several occasions. You sourced WP:BOLD in your restoration and yet you ignored the core principle of its companion when reverted, which is to discuss. Somehow I ended up having to start this discussion when I honestly had no interest, because this page has gotten incredibly unstable over something that should have been brought here months ago. Sock   ( tock talk)  14:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I disagree completely. Forbes stated outright that the Joker origin film is connected to The Batman. That's as plain as it gets. As for the Syfy reference - I can see your angle. And yet, was definitely not in violation of WP:OR nor WP:SYNTHESIS - as it was confirmed before Wonder Woman came out that Said Taghmaoui's character was a member of the Blackhawk Sqaudron, which can for example be read here. I referenced official franchise in my previous statement. Also, this didn't have to come up months ago as you stated - since only recently did Forbes state that the Joker origin is DCEU. Also, I have read plenty of articles speculating that Blackhawk may be in the now non-existent second franchise. That is what I was referencing, not your references.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Forbes writer does not paint the statements he has heard about the Joker film as concrete. Read: "[Article]: Hughes stresses that this is just a rumor for now, but that he's been told by two different people associated with Warner Bros. that there have been discussions about making The Batman exist in the same world as the Joaquin Phoenix led Joker." — "[Hughes]: I haven't heard anything firm [...]" At most, it sounds like they're considering its inclusion. This is speculation.
 * Taghmaoui's character in Wonder Woman is still a leap, as he nor his character are acknowledged in the press releases. Sources simply do not support Blackhawk being part of the DCEU at this time. Pre  fall  08:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Television series based on DC Extended Universe
DC Extended Universe need television series based on the films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.217.165 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which series? Do you have reliable sources that connect them to the WoDC? --  Alex TW 22:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are zero television series that are a part of the Worlds of DC film franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Limiting recurring cast members
I made a bold edit here and removed all actors from the recurring section that had not been billed for their roles. This removal included Carrie Farris, Steppenwolf, Silas Stone, and Zeus. In my opinion, these characters are minor and should not be included in the table as none of their roles were ever billed in anything but the credits. I also removed Shazam! from the listing, as no cast members are recurring yet and argue that the film's presence is simply eating space in the template.

I was (understandably) reverted by, and I knew I ran the risk of following WP:BRD, so here we are. I propose that the cast listed be required to have been billed in the billing block for at least one film, and that films without cast members appearing in multiple films be excluded until the time that they do appear in multiple films. Sock  ( tock talk)  15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the criteria should be tightened. Being billed for at least one film should be a must, and I would suggest appearing in multiple franchises rather than just multiple films would also be a good criterion. And I also agree that films should only be included in the table if they have a cast member that meets the other criteria, as this is not supposed to be a full cast list. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the films aren't overtly stacked with recurring characters to where a change needs to be made. Characters listed within the chart are exactly as the table is named "Recurring characters". Each of them have significance thus far within the film series. Should the occurrence happen more frequetly to where it's getting bloated, then absolutely restrictions will need to be made (just as was delayed far too long on the X-Men film universes page). At this time, the table is concise and includes recurring important characters. you also deleted Zod in your edits.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that exclusion, it genuinely slipped my mind. That said, I stand by that deletion. Shannon only portrays the character in MoS. We don't credit Robert Downey, Jr. for portraying Sid Shattuck in The Nice Guys because he never spent a day on set. All things considered, Shannon didn't for BvS either. But I can easily repent on that one. Sock   ( tock talk)  19:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if Shannon wasn't present he has interviews talking about the cgi scanning that he had to do for his role in the film... which lead to people thinking he'd play Doomsday. The actor is present through use of CGI. The table is fine how it is. The chart/film series/franchise isn't bloated at all yet. Should it come to a point where it is actually messy (again see X-Men film universe for that); then a change is constructive and needful.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)