Talk:Justice League (film)/Archive 1

Justice League - Part One
According to Entertainment Weekly, the title of the film includes a hyphen, although EW uses a longer dash in their article (Justice League — Part 1). - Richiekim (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Superman is brought back to life : spoiler alert

JL Part 1 and 2 cast connected?; WW is immortal and 5,000 years old
Is the cast for both part one and two one in the same? Although it may seem like that it doesnt look like each film is filming back to back. It appears as though Part One is filming firs. But nothing on part two. Also, i kñowthis isnt a source, by I couldnt find somethin reliable or from Empire Magazine itaelf it appears that Diana Prince is 5,000 years old and immortal. As well as being an antiques dealer. Here is the source. Npamusic (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In an interview, Chris Terrio States: "I have written Justice League Part One, but I won’t necessarily write Part Two". Here is the source. Npamusic (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Justice League Part One. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3109&Itemid=99

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 03:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Executive Producer does not mean "Producer"
If you're reading this, please make note that, as stated above, an executive producer does not mean that that person is a PRODUCER on the film. There are differences when it comes to being a producer and an executive producer. Please read up. Npamusic (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Justice League Part One
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Justice League Part One's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From 300: Rise of an Empire:  From The Dark Knight (film):  From Jonah Hex (film):  From Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice:  From Superman (1978 film):  From Red 2 (film):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Article Title
Should this be moved to Justice League (film) from Justice League (2017 film) since there is no other movie named Justice League? Ash wki (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sequel?
Is this film going to be a sequel to Batman v Superman? 173.55.97.103 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess not, in the same way that Marvel's The Avengers is not a sequel to any previous MCU film. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Marvel's The Avengers is a sequel to Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, like Marvel's The Avengers it is sort off standalone but in narrative sense, it is a sequel to Batman v Superman because the plots of DC Films installments coming out before this movie, Suicide Squad (film) and Wonder Woman (2017 film) do not necessarily take place between that of Batman v Superman and of this movie. Ash wki (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Trailer Reception
Should we already include a Reception section to have early thoughts on the trailer? DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any reviews from professional critics? If so, yes we may include. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SST flyer  05:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Justice League (2017 film) → Justice League (film) – Proper disambiguation. There are other other "Justice League" film pages. All other ones have specific disambiguations that the "2017" isn't necessary. –   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Justice League (disambiguation) says that there are two Justice League films coming out in 2017. What is "ambiguations"? I thought that we should avoid ambiguity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you see "two" films coming out in 2017? I'm looking at the page and there is only the one 2017 film. There are no other films that use the name "Justice League" (solely) as the title.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: There is no other film simply named "Justice League. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - As stated above. No other film is called Justice League DrkBlueXG (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Jesse Eisenberg
Please stop adding Jesse Eisenberg to the main cast until he's actually confirmed to be starring. Right now, we know he's in the film. That's it. DarkKnight2149 22:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And on that note, do we even know if Willem Dafoe is starring either? DarkKnight2149 22:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Diane Lane
Diane Lane, who portrayed Martha Kent in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, talked about an experience she had on the set of Justice League on last night's (Oct-7-16) episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Here is the clip from the program's official YouTube channel. I have no idea how to source this, or even if using a brief anecdote from a talk show violates any of Wikipedia's rules about sources. I was hoping someone else would know how to handle this. - LoveWaffle (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Henry Cavill
What is our source for the order of the cast list? People keep moving Cavill's name up and down the list, and I think it may be appropriate to add a note stating that he shouldn't be moved, once we get him to the right spot. -RM (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is an official cast list announcement, we could follow that. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is... we just know who has been confirmed, but many of the cast members were confirmed for BvS (Affleck, Cavill, Gadot, Miller, Momoa, Fisher, Adams, Irons, and possibly a couple others) and then there was (I believe) a sort of blanket statement that many of them would return for Justice League. I would say keep the order from BvS, but Miller, Momoa, and Fisher weren't in the main billing so we don't really know where they place in the billing here. So my next best idea: alphabetical by actor's last name. It eliminates any potential accusations of original research, at least until we get a billing block. -RM (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and make this change, until we get a billing block or something that can suggest an order for the cast list. I'm also going to move Hinds to the paragraph below... not sure if he's actually main cast, so it will be just the six Justice League members for now. -RM (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wish the Comic Con trailer had shown a cast list. We could have followed that. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that we've made this definitive (if only temporary) change to the cast list, I would recommend keeping close watch over it. Given this article's edit history, there are probably going to be a number of IPs and new users that will try to change it again for whatever reason.  Dark Knight  2149  16:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, I've added comments (as if that will stop anyone lol) and will check regularly. -RM (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have an official cast list as seen here. The cast has been reorganised accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk)  12:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally! Great to hear, thanks for making the change! -RM (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Matt Damon as Darkseid
Producer Charles Roven confirms Matt Damon as Darkseid. True or false? International Business Times
 * An April Fool's joke. Kailash29792   (talk)  17:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is a joke. It was posted today. I'm not aware how valid IBT is though. Reb1981 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It was originally posted yesterday. Someone probably picked it up and thought it was real.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Joss Whedon is post-production director
With all of the press and coverage the media, and Warner Bros./DC Films has made regarding Joss Whedon joining the film as writer of new and reshot scenes, as well as director of those and the post-production process - why are we waiting for a 'more official statement'? How much more official can it be? That along with the fact that he brought on Danny Elfman to compose those scenes (possibly to re-score the whole film as well); what makes him 'officially' a director of this? Opinions, anyone?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Official Statement I'm thinking of is the billing block of a future poster. And while Joss Whedon is working on re-shoots, DGA rules state a director has to be responsible for 51% of a film to receive full credit. See Superman II for the most famous case of that. I don't know about rules regarding co-credit. Crboyer (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone else filming reshoots or doing post-production work is NOT abnormal. It's just that it's Joss Whedon and so it's a publicity think. Also, Danny Elfman would not be redoing the whole score when Junkie XL has already been scoring it. Doing a few select scenes only means that Junkie XL is busy with the rest of the film and can't find time to do some random scene. I'm sure he's consulting with Danny, just like he did with Hans Zimmer on Batman v Superman.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think with the private screening of justice league. joss whedon should get credit for the reshoot and for finishing the movie. Yes zack snyder finished half the movie but that was in june. So far whedon have been finishing the movie himself. Underdog0123 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's already been established that he isn't getting a directing credit. Snyder did more than half the movie. The reshoots, although expensive, were not expansive enough to change the film. That's why Whedon got a writing credit and not a directing credit.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017
Mickmovie2543 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And what would you like to edit? Nobody (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Danny Elfman the sole composer?
Has it been confirmed whether or not Junkie XL's work on Justice League will still be used alongside Elfman's work, or if Danny Elfman will be the sole composer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.139.160 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An article I read that was the initial report stated that Elfman would compose the soundtrack for the new scenes and reshoots. That clearly doesn't say that Junkie XL is out of the picture!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Elfman replaced XL. According to The Hollywood Reporter, XL moved on to the Tomb Raider reboot. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't confirm whether or not Junkie XL's work will be used on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.139.160 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They're use of words tries to imply that it is all Elfman, but it's June, which is a little late in the game for a movie being released in November to try to develop a completely new score. It's more like it was on other films, where there is a good chance that he gets co-credit, instead of sole credit.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * XL's remarks in regards to this tells me that XL's score is being replaced. This isn't unheard of for a composer's score to be scrapped and replaced so soon before the film's release. For example, Gabriel Yared being replaced by James Horner on Troy. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Except nowhere does it say the score was scrapped. In the same exclusive from THR, it talks about ELfman replacement Tyler Bates on Age of Ultron. They BOTH got credit for the score. Unless a source says that Junkie's stuff was completely scrapped, or the film comes out and doesn't give him credit, we don't have a reliable source saying he should be removed. It's June 2017, the film comes out in 5 months. That's a lot to scrap last minute.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a mistake on THR's part then. The first time Elfman's involvement with AOU was when the film's poster was revealed. Obviously we'll wait for a billing block for final confirmation but at this moment it's looking like Elfman's doing the score on his own, which as I said isn't uncommon. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No, they didn't. 40 seconds in, you'll see for yourself. They are both credited for composing.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have confused me saying that THR's mistake was stating Elfman replaced Tyler as me saying Elfman was the only one credited for AOU. I know they collaborated on AOU. What I'm saying is that Elfman's involvement was first brought to light via the release of the poster, thus there was never a source that stated Elfman was replacing Tyler. But in the case of JL, it seems more like Elfman is in fact replacing XL, based off the wording XL used in his comments. Which will be proven or disproven come a billing block reveal. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 05:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The announcement probably has more to do with buzz than anything. My point is that, this isn't the first time Elfman has been brought in late to the game and contributed to something already there. And that none of the sources have identified if Junkie finished a score, did nothing, is having it completely rewritten by Elfman, or if Elfman is just taking care of the new scenes BECAUSE Junkie had already moved on to another film and couldn't come back. Everyone is being vague about what happened, and "being replaced" for Junkie could just as easily mean being replaced on scoring the additional scenes being filmed.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Elfman is the sole composer. No press about Junkie's involvement is being published. I can't believe Junkie is still being credited after a discussion from four months ago concluded this without consideration for recent news. There has been lots of news about Elfman recently.
 * Except, no news source has said that none of his music will be used. He was replaced late in the game, when he would have been working on a score. We only know that Elfman is taking over. No one has said that he doesn't plan to use any score, just like with Age of Ultron. We don't even have a credit list yet to see if he is getting sole credit for music or joint credit depending on if Junkie's music was used at all. If Junkie was replace early on, we wouldn't have this conversation, but it came after the film had finished primary photog and music scoring would have started.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The time of replacement never has anything to do with whether or not the rejected score will appear in the film. With Age of Ultron, it was made very clear from the beginning that Elfman was writing additional music that would be used alongside Tyler's score Link This is an entirely different. Link When a score is replaced, it is replaced. I don't understand why you all are having trouble understanding that. Junkie XL does not have Justice League featured on his website and anounced to his social media that he would not be involved with Justice League. Adervae (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say time of replacement dictates if his score will be used, I said time of replacement dictates whether or not he likely started a score. The use of that score is entirely up to the studio and Whedon, and no source has explicitly stated that it won't get any use (if it existed).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Justice League confirmed as 121 minutes long
Since Fandango's Erik Davis has confirmed here on Twitter (https://twitter.com/ErikDavis/status/922454655690596355) that Justice League is 121 minutes long, can we please add it to the film's wiki page, now? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017
96.242.120.51 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sak ura Cart elet   Talk 20:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Empire Cinemas confirms Justice League's runtime
Empire Cinemas have tweeted out that Justice League is announced to be 119 minutes and 53 seconds, which is estimated at 120 minutes or 2 hours: https://twitter.com/EmpireCinemas/status/922513823587762177. Can we please add this onto the film's wiki page? PLEASE? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk • contribs)


 * As an encyclopaedia, there's no rush. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Justice League officially certified by the BBFC, via Empire Cinemas, as 2 hours (120 minutes long)
Since JL is officially classified by the BBFC as 120 mnutes (2 hours) long via this link, http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/synopsis/justice_league/f5831, can we please add it into the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ciarán Hinds to Cast in infobox
I know it says add accordingly to JL movie website, but still shouldn't Ciarán Hinds be added? I mean he is the main antagonist and I am betting that he'll appear more than J.K. Simmons or Connie Nielsen. Ciarán Hinds as Steppenwolf is even depicted as part of the main cast in the "Cast" section of the article with a good chunk of info about his role in the film. At least we can agree that he should be included at most last in the cast build in the infobox. Just saying if not it's okay. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally, we reserve the infobox for who is actually listed as "starring" in the film. The cast section contains characters who we have enough real world information to cover (plus the starring roles). That's why some non-starring roles can be listed and fleshed out more when they aren't actually starring.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

BBFC officially confirms Justice League is 2 hours long
The BBFC has confirmed Justice League is 120 minutes (2 hours) long: http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/justice-league-film. Please add this into it's film page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

$300 million budget
The budget has been announced as $300M, as confirmed by likes of Collider and The Wall Street Journal. Feel those sources are sufficient to use. Thoughts/concerns? http://collider.com/justice-league-runtime-budget-revealed/ TropicAces (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Gal Gadot is the Female lead
Gal Gadot/Wonder Woman is the female lead of Justice League, not Amy Adams since she has been the only female characer in this film to appear on a poster and she has been very heavily featured in all the trailers. So unless an official cast list from Warner Bros. says otherwise, Gal Gadot will continue to be listed as the female lead from now on. Lois Lane is only a supporting character in the film. DCTrinity (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gadot is the female lead, but Adams is (surprisingly) billed over her., as for your comment that there is no official cast list released by WB, I guess you haven't heard about this. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Kailash29792 ah, ok. Yeah I couldn’t find anything on the JL official site or any stories when I Googled “Justice League cast billing” so I assumed it was yet to be released (partnered with none of the posters/trailers having a block). Thanks for the info! TropicAces (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Steppenwolf taakes me to the wrong link.
Please Fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.112.144.129 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract  ‖ 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot
Why is plot for the film not added even though the film has released? Wikipedia should not censor for spoilers or any other reasons. 122.171.227.21 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It will be added, there's no rush. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 09:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can submit a plot here, written in your own words.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017
82.219.7.1 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC) When is the premise being updated to the plot of the movie?
 * When someone gets around to writing it. Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Where is the coverage in this article about Rotten Tomatoes withholding the score for Justice League? There are many articles about this. It should not be omitted from this Wikipedia article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Antiope
Guys Antiope can be seen in the trailer, that scene was in the movie before Steppenwolf kills the lantern :D just like Ares and Zeus, she never spoke. 181.142.44.146 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure i saw her in the movie. Spanneraol (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course she was, Diana says "legendary warriors" and they show antiope in a horse followed by Menalippe, then she jumps and stabs a parademon, then they show the lantern.

Jon Kent
Why remove the mention of the cameo appearance of Kevin Costner as Pa Kent? In BvS article mentions the cameo photo appearance of Chris Pine as Steve Trevor.OscarFercho (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An archive photo is not actually a cameo appearance. Costner did not work on the film. Spanneraol (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the photo of Chirs Pine in the article of BvS?OscarFercho (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference in that case is that was his first appearance as the character as BvS came out before Wonder Woman. Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Music
It sould be: "Gary Clark Jr., Sigrid and The White Stripes have also been featured in the Justice League album" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.142.44.146 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mid-credit scene
This scene is for laughs and does not add anything to the overall understanding of the plot, nor impact anything the way the end credit scene is. WP:MOSFILM points out that gags should not be put into plot summaries, and that's all this is. Don't spout to me about it being important because it's from the comics, because that's irrelevant to this film. It was for comic fans, and there is not a mandate to include every post film scene in the plot summary simply because they exist. What importance does it add to this page, about the film itself? I'm curious if someone can tell me the importance that isn't based on knowledge of comic book lore.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Mid-Credits Scene is part of the movies plot. While it may be for humor, if you look at other film articles, it is present there. The mid credit scene serves a purpose at is drives the viewers to see who was behind the big motion picture they just watched. People who are about the watch the movie will search sites like wikipedia to see if a mid credit scene is present. It is also important as it develops Superman's assimilation back to life and his relation with the justice league. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you mistaken "part of the plot" for "a moment in the story". The plot of the film is stopping Steppenwolf and bringing the Justice League together. THe plot is not Superman and Flash race (you're interpretation that it shows Superman's assimilation back to the world is not only originaly research, but not based on any actual facts period because his "real world" would be becoming CLark Kent again). We're not here to cater to comic book fans when it has nothing to do with the overall plot of the film. Nor is the fact that other articles do it an argument, because I'm arguing that it shouldn't if the scene is non-essential to the plot. For example, the Guardians one with Howard the Duck and Cosmo is completely irrelevant and for laughs...not to expand anything. Now, Thanos grabbing his empty gauntlet IS rather important. It is also NOT our job to help them know if there is a mid-credit or post credit scene. Google can do that. We're an encyclopedia, NOT a news source. Your argument that it is important to understanding the film is because we have to tell viewers that is exists so that they stay longer in the theater?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Uncited content
I was going to start tagging the article but first-why is so much of the content uncited?
 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What specifically?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does the "Development" section of this article come from, and how much of it is relevant?
Most of the cites currently numbered between 18 and 49 were apparently retrieved in 2008, five years before this article's creation. And some of it, like The news came around the same time that Joss Whedon's long-developed Wonder Woman film had been cancelled, as well as The Flash, written and directed by David S. Goyer. looks like irrelevant extrapolations from old entertainment news fluff pieces that had nothing to do with this topic at best, and WP:SYNTH at worst. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Box Office update
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/11/22/box-office-as-justice-league-crosses-325m-should-dc-films-be-saved/#7b4af4775e4f Film Box Office Crossed 325M, Update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OthaDAW (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017
The budget of the film "Justice League" is being shown as 300 million but can it be changed to 250 - 300 million - the link to where I found this information https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/justice-league-box-office-setback-dcs-superhero-universe-1059826 - it would be a pleasure to see this happen! :) MovieCube (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The cited source justifies the $300M figure. Saying $250-$300M does not enhance any understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

How is this a review of the film?
"maybe in the future this can be a fun team to watch? Ezra Miller sure looks like he’s having fun, so that’s promising. The actors involved are all pretty good. They just need someone in charge to have them do something interesting – cough, Patty Jenkins, cough."

This is the kind of talk you hear from a high schooler. "Miller sure looks like he's having fun", "actors are all pretty good". Is this the quote you select to include in the article to represent the critical reception it received. Seriously?! If I needed to hear this I would call my 14 year old cousin and ask. Seriously though, it's been over a week. Why is this still a quote that's included in the Wikipedia article? Is no one bothering? This is not a review of the film, nor is this quote even remotely helpful to understand the "critical reception" received by the film. Inclusion of this quote is absolutely ridiculous.

How someone thought that it's logical to include this quote in the Wikipedia article to describe the "critical" reception the film received is beyond me. 112.110.76.41 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed.. it's from an online source i'm not familiar with.. we should use only established sources for reviews like the Hollywood Reporter and Rolling Stones ones. I've removed that one.Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Prince's mother"?
I think referring to Wonder Woman as "Prince" is both ridiculous and ambiguous, because people are bound to think of Prince before realizing it's the rarely used last name of Wonder Woman's human identity (plus Aquaman is an actual prince). She's referred to as "Diana" throughout all the movie. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree.. I changed it in the ploy synopsis already.. missed that one. Spanneraol (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead appears to contradict itself
Did Joss Whedon "write the screenplay" that Snyder used, or was he given a screenplay credit in placed of a co-director credit even though what he actually did was much more "directing" than "writing"? Our first paragraph currently cites the "official" credits as fact, but the second paragraph very strongly implies otherwise. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely get the confusion, the wording leaves something to be desired. Whedon was brought in to rewrite the script and add additional scenes before Snyder had stepped down, but after Snyder's departure Whedon was asked to direct the scenes he'd written. Whedon receiving a screenplay credit is accurate, since he did write a lot of what appears on screen, but I think at least briefly mentioning that Whedon directed a good portion of the movie is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph. Most reports seem to think the work spread was almost 50/50 between Snyder and Whedon, and not clarifying that in the first paragraph is certainly something of an oversight. Sock   ( tock talk)  13:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of hearsay and if it was 50/50, then the director's guild would have given him credit as a director. What needs to happen is that there just needs to be clarity that Whedon's scripting came after the original script, and that he also did post-production directing of reshoots. Nothing more.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats all in the next paragraph... the lead accurately describes the final credited roles on the film.. I dont think any further clarification is needed. Spanneraol (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the film is directed by Zack Snyder with a screenplay by ... Joss Whedon is definitely not accurate to the reality of the situation and is not technically supported by the film credits, which don't contradict the reality of the situation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not supported by the credits? The credits say Joss Whedon wrote the script, as well as Chris Terrio. It says "and" instead of "&", which means that they contributed separately and not together. Joss' situation is clarified in the second paragraph. Are you arguing that somehow that needs to be in the first couple of sentences? Anyone reading the lead is likely to read more than just the first line anyway, so it doesn't seem to be an issue since it's explained that he didn't write the original script, but contributed after the fact. The on-screen credits of the film don't stop half-way through to go, "to be clear, Whedon wrote his stuff later and not at the same time).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * which means that they contributed separately and not together Yes, and our article -- or at least the first paragraph -- implies they did so together. Are you arguing that somehow that needs to be in the first couple of sentences? No. Please don't put words in my mouth. Technically, MOS:FILM says The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. Whedon is definitely well-known, but I don't know if the same could be said of Terrio; certainly Whedon is much better known than Terrio. My solution would be to cut the writing credits from the opening paragraph entirely and add them to the second paragraph where they can be appropriately nuanced (and, frankly, where a couple more blue links would not look quite so messy). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "imply" anything.. it simply states the titles as specified by the credits.. director, writers, actors.. all perfectly legit. The second paragraph goes into the details of who did what and when... I don't see any problem with this. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Home Media Release Dates
According to this link, it will be available on DVD in March, with dates for digital release in February. Since there are requests to protect this page, I will leave it up to someone else to add this info. But here's the link: https://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/5978/Justice-League-2017.html Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Break even point
Most of the article's I've read place the film's break even point at somewhere between $700 and $750 million. However, this page (http://deadline.com/2017/11/justice-league-opening-weekend-box-office-lower-thor-ragnarok-wonder-the-star-1202211094/) contains the cryptic statement that "if the film clears $700M-$750M global, after ancillaries, it would profit, but a breakeven scenario exists in the high $600M global B.O. range which is where this Snyder opus is bound to final." This confuses me. By definition, if a film exceeds its break-even point, it turns a profit. So how can Justice League require somewhere in the $600 million range to "break even" but more than $700 million to "profit"? Shouldn't the break-even point and the profitability point be the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.217.19.207 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Film studios don't spend $300 million to produce a movie, and another $100 million on global marketing in the hopes of barely going beyond the break even point. They expect to get a return on their investment more than equal to what was spent. Simply managing to break even is colossal failure. WB saying that they consider $700-$750 million to be profitable after ancillaries was just them trying to put a positive spin on what they expected to be a bad situation. As it turned out, the box office returns were even worse than they were afraid of. By WB stating that they would make a profit from ancillaries is an incredibly bad sign. That means they're having to include sales of toys, t-shirts, lunchboxes, etc. Movies are supposed to drive toy sales as an extra stream of income, not rely upon them to make up for box office losses. 2600:6C56:6500:B0:58B8:76E4:2328:F893 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone erase the title "Box Office Bomb" part? Justice League made its budget back but the loss comes from the expensive marketing campaign this you cant call it a bomb. Zomgrose (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Superhero names reversion
Hi For others, I added familiar superhero names, such as "Batman" and "Aquaman", in parentheses to the Plot section. Bignole reverted my changes with the note: unnecessary, we have a cast list that has them, plus if they aren't used in the film we don't use them.

I have two demurrals.

First, are you saying that the superhero names aren't used at all in the film? That no where in the movie is "Batman" or "Flash" ever mentioned? But Superman is mentioned (???), at least his death: the article says "mankind is in mourning over Superman". And as long as we're using secret identities as names, shouldn't it be Diana Prince rather than Diana?

Second, Wikipedia is intended for the average person, not superhero comic fans or butterfly enthusiasts. The average person reading as far as the plot won't recognize the bulk of the secret identities, certainly beyond Clark Kent (and possibly Bruce Wayne). Now you wiki-linked the names, which is good. I'm just wondering: someone who's new to the concept of secret identities, will they ever "get" the references to (say) Authur Curry or Victor Stone? Won't they simply give up, never getting to the Cast section.

My main point is that most people reading the article won't understand that Wayne and Allen and Stone are superheros, not average civilians. And isn't that the main purpose of the movie?

Your thoughts? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is very awkward the way it is used... especially since all the Batman films use "Batman" and not "Wayne" to describe his actions in the films... and considering Batman and Bruce Wayne are two very distinct personalities.. it is really odd to use Wayne to describe him here... Wonder Woman goes by Diana most of the time so thats fine.. not as set on the others but Batman should definitely be used. Spanneraol (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * First, the average reader isn't an idiot who doesn't know who Batman, Superman, etc. are. How can someone read the plot section and not figure out that those individuals are? You mean to tell me that saying "Cyborg" makes people go "Oh yeah!". If you know the name "Cyborg", "Flash", and "Aquaman" then you likely known who they really are. If you don't, then the name probably doesn't mean much anyway. Either way, we have a cast list if they really need to know their alter-ego names. That said, I didn't say that ALL the names weren't used. "Wonder Woman" is never actually said, "The Flash" is never actually said, "Deathstroke" is never said, they call Victor "the cyborg" but as a regular noun instead of a proper noun. Bruce alludes to Arthur that he's known as the Aquaman, but never again is it used in the film as a call sign. They actively refer to Clark as "Superman" when he shows up. So, hence the revert.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Batman/Wayne issue is the only one i really have.. not so much the other characters... as Batman and Wayne are two very distinct personalities.. and other Batman films on here always refer to him as Batman when he's in costume. Spanneraol (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we use "Batman" in this plot summary. I didn't remove that. I removed the "Diana Prince (Wonder Woman)" structure.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are obviously experts on the whole superhero omniverse. But Wikipedia is not some superhero fan website, where you go into the minutia of what identity and personality belongs to what character. I'm not saying you can't go into this minutia; it's just that you must cover the basics first. The article should address the average reader, who doesn't know any identities other than perhaps Superman/Clark Kent. What is the connection between these apparently random individuals in the Plot section and "In the film, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg..." in the lead?
 * Let's say you're just reading the Justice League article to see if you want to watch the movie on cable TV. Make pretend you're that person. Assuming that you get past the lead, you encounter "Diana joins Bruce Wayne in his attempt ... with Wayne going after Arthur Curry and Barry Allen ... Victor Stone." Who are they? What have they to do with the Justice League?
 * In my opinion, the average reader will not recognize Diana, Bruce Wayne, Arthur Curry, Barry Allen and/or Victor Stone as superheros. Therefore the article fails to identify (except via wikilink) the main characters the first time the article mentions them.
 * I have made a change to the Plot section. I changed "Diana joins Bruce Wayne in his attempt to unite other metahumans to their cause" with "Diana joins Bruce Wayne in his attempt to unite other superhero alter-egos to their cause". The word "metahumans" would not be familiar to the average reader and "superhero" provides connection to the lead while "alter ego" supplies context to the sentence that I've changed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that makes sense.. they arent recruiting "alter-egos".. they are recruiting the heroes themselves. Spanneraol (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Then why don't we name the superheroes (in the Plot Section) by their superhero names, instead of Diana, Bruce Wayne, Arthur Curry, Barry Allen and Victor Stone? I thought this was the whole argument against me. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, because the plot is written based on what's on the screen, not based on what you know personally as a fan. If you watch the film, they never call Barry "the Flash", they just call him Barry. Arthur is just Arthur and Victor is just Victor. Even Diana is just Diana. Victor calls Clark "Superman", and he is known in the world as "Superman". Batman is called Batman, and is known in that world as Batman. The same is not true (as of right now) for any of those others.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The average reader vs. shared universes
Just a comment. This article (and many like it) are written as if the reader is familiar with the DCEU. In my opinion, the average reader is not even aware of the ins and outs of the DCU and may not be cognizant of many the concepts of a shared universe.

For example, reverted the change of metahuman to superhero alter-egos in the Plot section because the characters aren't superheroes as yet (and therefore don't have alter egos). That is well and good if you accept the DCEU timeline. But we, as Wikipedia editors, are supposed to deal with the real timeline, out here in the real world. Not some made up timeline (DCEU) which is a version of the another made up timeline (DCU) which is a generational descendent of the Justice League/Society in the Golden Age of Comic Books (see All Star Comics #3, 1940).

We can't say:
 * Diana (Wonder Woman in the shared multiverse of DC Comics) joins Bruce Wayne (Batman in the DC Universe) in his attempt to unite other metahumans (superheroes in DCU) to their cause, with Wayne going after Arthur Curry and Barry Allen (Aquaman and the Flash), while Diana tries to locate Victor Stone (Cyborg).

Maybe we can put a banner in the front of the Plot section that says something like:
 * The Plot section is told from viewpoint of the DC Extended Universe, which includes the characters of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg.

Or even:

It's just if we don't provide some connection between the Plot Section and "Batman and Wonder Woman recruit The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg" in the lead, you're going to have a whole bunch of confused readers. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Plot section is not the article. It's just a bare-bones skeleton that's used to hang the rest of the article on. In that regards, we just summarize the plot in terms of what's stated in the primary source such that the average reader won't wonder who the Flash is while watching the movie since he's not even mentioned by that name in the movie. The reader can probably suss it out, but when the character first appears, he's called Barry Allen. The fact that Barry Allen is based on the Flash from comic books can be mentioned elsewhere in more appropriate and more important sections, such as Cast or Production. DonQuixote (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don has summed this up. This is why Harvey Dent is Harvey Dent and not Two-Face on The Dark Knight, why Doomsday is not "Doomsday" in the Batman v Superman article. The plot is the plot. It's based on what happens in the film, and we don't insert other information just because we know better. Readers can read the cast section is they are actually confused (which I doubt anyone actually is) to find out their "alter-egos".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the average reader reads the whole article, from beginning to end. When was the last time you read Wikipedia just find out something about the subject of an article, not to edit the article itself? And when you found out that particular information, probably in a specific sentence or paragraph, did you continue reading till the end of the article? (In my case, I was trying to familiarize myself with the plot before I watched the movie on cable. I haven't read comics since the Silver Age and things are a lot different now.)
 * I think it's much simpler. If the character is wearing a costume, he should be referred to by his super name; if he's in civvies, he should be referred to by his everyday name. It's not rocket science; it's a comic book, for gosh sakes. With made-up characters that don't have any more consistency than the screenwriters think necessary.
 * By the way, I'd prefer it if the plot section followed the same timeline as the movie: "After Superman's death, Batman encounters a winged creature who, when captured, explodes and leaves a green smear." And so on.
 * But I can't convince you and you can't convince me. So I'm going to let it go. Maybe in five years I'll come back and revise the whole plot section. Have fun. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how encyclopaedias work. What you're looking for is a fansite or IMDb. DonQuixote (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're talking about putting a name in the plot section that doesn't exist in the film. Why would we do that? What if they decided not to use that name? It's about common usage in the film and consistency across the section. Are you arguing this same point over at Avengers: Infinity War, where they call Captain America "Steve Rogers" initially, and then refer to him only as "Rogers" the rest of the time? Or Quill, Parker, Stark, Strange, instead of Starlord, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Dr. Strange?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A new page for Justice League Zack Snyder's Cut, due to it's confirmation by the director.
I have created an intial draft for a page of Justice League Zack Snyder's cut, here's it's link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Justice_League:_Zack_Snyder%27s_Cut?markasread=159444860&markasreadwiki=enwiki

However, it has been rejected for the mentioned reasons, and suggested to be included in the main page of Justice League (film) rather than being in a separate page of itself, however the page should be accepted as a separate page for several reasons:

- The main Justice League page is protected.

- This is an intial page, and it's planned to be expanded in the future, since there's alot of ongoing information about the cut; it's history and confirmed differences from the theatrical cut, for example.

-The search for Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League is trending, since it's confirmed by the director himself, therefore, there's a potential release for this cut in the future.

-The cut is speculated to be completely different movie from the theatrical cut - similar to Richard Donner cut of Superman II, which has it's own page on Wikipedia - for several reasons: -The cut uses different soundtrack, visual effects and tone (similar to those seen in first Justice League trailer, before the departure of Zack Snyder). -Several scenes are completely reshooted by director Joss Whedon (rather than Zack Snyder). -The cut has different length. -Several characters made an appearance in the cut, but did not appear in the theatrical cut (most notably: Darksied), additionally, the cut uses completely different design for the main vilain Steppenwolf. Snake Fisher (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The short answer is "no". There doesn't need to be a separate page for a film that at this time doesn't actually exist. There may be footage out there, but that's no different than the various cuts of Blade Runner. Any reliably sourced information would just be presented there. There's no reason to have a separate page for what will amount to a duplication of this page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , Most unreleased films (e.g canceled films) doesn't actually exist at this time, yet they/it has it's own pages, because it's a different films that have alot information and popularity/hype behind them. They have their own identity.

Perfect example is Richard Donner cut of Superman II, it's not just a cut, but rather, it's a completely different film. Due to confirmation of this cut by the director himself, there's so much people wondering about it, any brief information will help, and Wikipedia should provide the information people need.

Please, I have worked hard on the page, I will appreciate it being accepted, there's so much information that I wanted to expand in that page, but it would take much time. At the meantime, a brief information about the cut is sufficient, more to come in the future.

Furthermore, Zack Snyder's Cut is not mentioned in the main page of Justice League (film) Snake Fisher (talk)
 * What it is... essentially.. is the original first directors cut of the film.. all films have those.. i wouldn't say it's a complete film as there are likely missing scenes and missing effects shots... but it's still the same movie.. just an earlier draft of it.. and as such does not need it's own article.. the amount of time dedicated to it in the "community reaction" section is quite enough. Spanneraol (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Span, as that was my point. You're not talking about a full, unreleased film. You're just talking about another cut of the movie. We don't have a separate page for Batman v Superman, which was 30 minutes longer. This is what we know: Snyder confirmed there was a finished (sans some SFX and music) version of Justice League and alluded (never actually said) that it was 214 minutes (3.5 hours basically). That doesn't mean it had gone through all its cuts, that's just what he ended up putting in the can. Obviously, we know Warner Bros cut at least 1.5 hours from it, and Whedon came in and reshot new dialogue for approximately 30 percent of the film. So, while yes the tone is probably completely different and we're missing a lot, a separate film it does not make. Even if it did, you would not likely have enough information to justify splitting from this page. You'd have some additional plot elements for the plot section, and maybe some new critical response to the film (ala Batman v Superman). That's it. The production section would likely just copy and paste this production section. That doesn't leave much in the room of new content that requires a separate page for it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive
Some of these discussions could be archived. DCBVS (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Urgent) Vandalism Incoming
https://screenrant.com/justice-league-movie-snyder-cut-wikipedia-controversy/

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but apparently the Snyder cult doesn't like what the article has to say about the Snyder Cut. The Snyder Cut Twitter is now urging all fans to create accounts and change the article in their favour.

Yeah, this is bad. Expect a flood of single-purpose accounts and POV-based WP:COI editing very soon. I'm about to alert WP:ANI of this nonsense. , you probably want to see this.  Dark Knight  2149  16:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ironically, they mention that it's the Justice League article, but it isn't. It's actually the Versions of Justice League article, which should probably be cleaned up and better titled, that contains the information they are referencing. All of it is sourced. It probably contains a bit too much detail considering the "toxic" fanbase is a small portion of the entire group. So, I would suggest it is pruned a little, but the overall idea that there are people who are actively aggressively to get a Snyder Cut should stay. It ensures a neutral stand, as we point out the good (raising money for suicide awareness) with the bad.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was talking about both articles. Either way, I already requested page protection for Versions of Justice League just in the nick of time. Only one WP:COI IP editor got through before the protection was put in place, which was reverted. I left a notice at WP:ANI just so administrators are aware of the situation. I'll leave any decisions related to the content itself in the hands of those who have been shepherding the articles since 2016.
 * Personally, I don't see how anyone can complain about being called "toxic" when they spend years relentlessly harassing a studio to release an unfinished rough cut with incomplete green screen, and refusing to listen anyone who informs them of such. The film itself was already an expensive flop, and people made fun of WB for using a DLC model for Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. Why would they spend more money completing and releasing another version that wasn't meant for public consumption?  Dark Knight  2149  05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The real bodget
The real bodget is 600m Mohamadwolf (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Says??   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Snyder Cut
Snyder cut section has som serious bias issues. One the video he released isn't proof of a cut, anyone could have dressed that up. Two everyone else on the production says there is no cut, who would be in the know to say so. But that isn't covered in the section. Like https://www.geekfeed.com/justice-league-vfx-artist-says-no-snyder-cut/ That this troll campaign has spread to wikileaks and wikileaks has allowed it is really sad. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First, generally we would trust a director saying there is a cut versus a random particular production person that worked on 1 aspect of the film (not the whole thing like a director). Secondly, people's understanding of "cut" can be different. What many of them are referring to when they say "no cut" is that there isn't a useable cut because the SFX were not completed, not that it wasn't filmed. I'm not sure I see where the "bias" is that you're referring to. That section is a summary section, not the entire thing. It includes language like: "In the belief that Snyder had shot enough material for a finished film". There could probably be some word swapping in some of the later stages, but we don't cover everything here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't one random person, it is several that is one of several articles of people who worked on the film, besides studio and others with knowledge saying the same, so the random jab seems a personal attack there. So you can take that language elsewhere. There is no cause for them to be any less trustworthy a source than the director so again that points to bias. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define "cut"... he did an edit of the film.. his first assembly of the material as it was shot... that exists... it is not by any real definition a finished edit with sound and effects. Spanneraol (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which has what to do with the bias of the section, in not fairly covering it given there are plenty of other reliable sources saying otherwise? No one is arguing the definition of a cut. My point is there are more than one equally reliable sources and points of view on the topic that the article isn't showing... hence biased. Those working on the project and studio are just as credible a source as Snyder, and dispute him. That should be included. This is one of the key principles of wikipedia articles being ignored. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "personal jab" you are referring to, as I made no such personal attack against you. I don't know that I would say that Danny Elfman is an "equally reliable" party compared to the guy that filmed the movie. It was well documented that the movie was in post production when Snyder left. That means there was a cut of the film before Whedon refilmed and recut the movie. So, multiple people saying there's "no cut" cannot be referring to the idea that Snyder didn't finish filming, because we know he did based on when he left the production. Deductive logic means they are referring to a finished product, which I don't think the section implies exists. There are differences of opinion on how much post work was completed. Junkie XL has said he actually did complete the score. The VFX supervisors have said they did quite a bit of the work. The people that claim there isn't a cut only saw the pieces they needed to see. Which is normal for any film. The link you originally posted says: "“1000% bulls**t. As I’ve said, of course, there is an assembly cut Zack had gone before he left, but that was 9 months ago. He himself said he hasn’t touched or interfered or been a part of the process since March. There is no cut. People like this guy (who spread the rumor) are the worst, perpetuating rumors of processes they don’t understand.”" --- The key part of that statement is "there is an assembly cut Zack had gone before he left." -- He isn't saying that a cut doesn't exist, only that a finished product doesn't exist. I'm not sure of what bias exists on the page, because this page just really talks about the movement associated with the Snyder Cut. There is an entirely different page for all the details.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * calling him some random as if I was just grabbing just anyone out of desperation is a job. Two, "because this page just really talks about the movement associated with the Snyder Cut"  Then it should be its own page or not here.  And those calling to question the cut is absolutely relevant to the movement, so yes is bias.  You aren't covering all sides without prejudice. That is bias. That is the core of wikipedia. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Referring to a random production person as a random production person isn't a personal attack. it's a description of what they are. Feel free to check out personal attacks. The point was the people that know the state of the movie are more likely to be Snyder and Warner Bros. No one else, unless they've seen something first hand. A "random" VFX person only knows what they've seen. I'd trust the VFX Supervisor over a random VFX person who only works on what shots they give them. None of that is a personal attack on them, just merely pointing out that putting undue weight on the opinion of people that do not determine the "state" of a finished film seems a little....odd to me.


 * As for "Then it should be its own page or not here"....I'm thinking you didn't actually thoroughly vet that section because there's a link to the full page in that section. When pages are split you leave behind a brief summary, you don't simply create a section that contains only a link to another page. That's what we did here. Again, this section is about the community reaction and the movement of the "Snyder Cut"....that's why it's called "Community reaction and the 'Snyder Cut'". It isn't a section about whether or not the cut exist. It's a section about the fact that a very vocal and well documented group of people (include people that worked on the film) believe it to exist and have called for its release. The full page is the place that would outline different opinions about whether it exists or not. It doesn't matter if a cut DOES or DOES NOT exist, because the movement to have a cut released still exists. So I go back to the fact that I don't see a "bias" as you claim, because the section isn't about taking a side, it's about the movement.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You referred to it as me just pulling out some random person trying to DISHONESTLY discredit me, and someone with relevance to the production.  That absolutely is a personal attack.  And irrelevant to you opposing RELEVANT FACTS to the topic.  Part of community reaction and Snyder cut is ALL relevant claims about it.  With holding details because it doesn't support the 'synder cut' view absolutely is bias.  And it is clear you are part of that Snyder crowd protecting that bias.  Everything you've said has continued to prove that bias with the objections of relevant material that fits the wiki criteria of additional information. You are part of the bias.  96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're a little mixed up. I didn't refer to you about anything. I merely pointed out that a random production person (I know they exist, I read the articles when they first came out) doesn't trump the director. So no, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in that being a personal attack. A personal attack would be calling you an insulting name, or at least insinuating it. I did no such thing. I attacked nothing about you but the argument itself. It's clear that there is no rational argument that can be made to you regarding the section. Anyone that argues differently is just going to be called "bias" by you. I'm bowing out. Have a good day.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Abin Sur
So, is Julian Lewis Jones actually confirmed to be playing the Green Lantern, Abin Sur, or did somebody just put that on here as a wild guess? -DCTrinity (talk) 1:38, 2 February 2017

"Justice League (2017 movi)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Justice League (2017 movi). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  17:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Deadline predicts a $110-120M opening weekend for Justice League
While Box Office Pro is saying JL will open to $150M in it's opening weekend, Deadline is saying JL will open to $110-120M in it's opening weekend: http://deadline.com/2017/10/ben-affleck-justice-league-gal-gadot-box-office-projection-1202195005/