Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film)

Untitled
Why does Julianne Grossman redirect here? 68.206.6.138 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Woman (film)
I gotta say, I'm really liking the simple use of the word "film" by itself in the parentheses. I like it a lot. Kudos to whoever did this and don't change a thing! This is technically the first official Wonder Woman film to be made and I doubt we'll be seeing another film for a while, considering the live-action adaptation is currently still in development hell and according to Joss Whedon, the WB studio has no enthusiasm to release it. I feel adding in words like "animated" or "direct-to-dvd" before "film" in the parentheses would not only be unnecessary, but diminish the historic importance and value of this film. The article for Cars (film) doesn't have "animated" before "film". We don't tact on words like "live-action", "unreleased", or "non-theatrical" for articles like The Fantastic Four (film), which deals with the first Fantastic Four movie made in 1994. Nor do we add "theatrical" to an article like Star Trek (film). Do we? Not that anyone is debating this, but just in case someone does later on....I submit that the current title for this article should stay the same and not be changed to accommodate a possible future live-action film which might bare the same title, or might not come at all.--Mike Castle (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this is OK by me. I've added a hatnote at the top of the article to point to the live-action section at Wonder Woman.  If the live-action film begins production, we can move this article to the appropriate year and start the new one at its own appropriate year.  For example, the animated film at Wonder Woman (2008 film) and the live-action film -- if it happens -- at Wonder Woman (2011 film). (Barring any slight name differences like with Transformers and G.I. Joe.)  Sound good? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I oppose such an idea of permanence, on a few points. One, the live-action film did 'start' first; there are years of citation giving it primacy over the newer animated film,which will likely finish first. Two, I don't like the idea of trying to establish wiki-wide policy about the naming of films. Third, I'd already been in discussion with darknus about his page-moves, who agreed that as the live-action started first, when it is released, that should go at this place (film) and the cartoon at (animated film). See that comment here . Finally, as this page already pointed to the live-action at the main Wonder Woman page, that establishes that, to some extent, there was some consensus to see the live-action film be placed here. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would not be appropriate to use (animated film). Per naming conventions for films, the first step in disambiguation is the release year.  If both films happen to come out the same year, then "animated" and "live-action" would be inserted to further disambiguate the issue.  I'm not sure what the inconvenience is in following WP:NCF, either?  We could debate about different setups, but WP:NCF is fully applicable here.  Considering that both projects are of the same popular subject matter (and not an obscure Wonder Woman film being based on some female aviator), it seems unnecessary to argue about live-action having prominence over animated.  The animated film is as guaranteed as it gets to come out, where the live-action film is not assured at all, so it is too speculative to reserve the title for this.  My suggestion would be to request a splitting of page history, keeping just the animated film revisions here and placing the live-action film revisions at Wonder Woman (2009 film), and redirecting it to the existing section.  I only say 2009 because IMDb presents that release year (however inaccurate), but it can be moved later -- I'm doing this with Logan's Run (2010 film) and Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film).  The hatnote is enough to point to the appropriate section and strongly reflects that there is no certainty about the live-action film being produced. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, I'm seeing that the page history is missing. I'm going to go ahead and have it retrieved. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Gwen Gale about retrieving the page history and restoring it at the aforementioned 2009 film article title. I think the same should be done for revisions on this talk page before June 23, 2008.  ThuranX, what do you think?  I also wanted to point out that this article pointed to the live-action section before there were any reports about the animated film.  The consensus is historical, but it doesn't directly mean that the live-action film was intended to be placed here over the animated film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you guys overall and you've both made valid points. I think the main solid argument in favor of keeping the title of this article the same is the obvious fact that the live-action Wonder Woman film is still very much in the fickle status known as developement hell, nowhere near the green light. I think I read somewhere that Joel Silver is still looking for a new spec script and is trying to decide if Warner Bros. should go ahead with a Justice League movie first. Meanwhile other DC properties like Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Captain Marvel and the Flash already have either been greenlit or have some big names attached to their respective projects. Whatever you guys decide, I'm sure the decision will be a logical one. I just felt someone should have a case posted here in favor of keeping the current article title, since there will undoubtedly be a few people who might be against it. --Mike Castle (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'lll yeild to the naming conventions, but want to wait on the missing history that Erik's looking for. IF the missing history shows this page to be the live action film, then I'd support say... wonder woman (film) and wonder woman (2009 Film) for the animated? It's not that big a deal, i'm more concerned about switching the content from the live-action to the animated without a darn good reason, because that could confuse people. ThuranX (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the page history was restored. Just look at the history for this article.  Also, notice that Classicfilms broadened the redirect in October 2007, presumably because of the JLA film.  It should be possible to divert the page history to a live-action film article that can be treated as a redirect toward the section at the superheroine article.  The same can be done with this talk page's page history before June 23, 2008.  We can just leave a note on all respective talk pages explaining that Wonder Woman (film) will be for the animated film, but if a live-action film is produced, then we'd yield to naming conventions and disambiguate by year.  With these notes and the hatnote, that should clearly separate the two. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Revisions related to the live action film were moved from Wonder Woman (film) to Wonder Woman (2009 film) and Talk:Wonder Woman (film) to Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film). This way, there can be two separate groups of revisions: one for the animated film, and one for a possible live action film. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. problems solved. thansk for following up, Erik. ThuranX (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of View?
If I understand correctly doesn't wikipedia have a neutral point of view policy? I so then I believe the criticism from the fans section should be deleted or at the very least be sourced. As it stands now it serves no purpose other than to criticize the subject of the article, and the sections title seems to read like a very transparent way to insert weasel words. Who are these fans? Where can we find copies of their reviews? Why should they be considered reliable sources? While some fans might personally have disliked the film (myself included) I really don't think the section is in compliance with wikipedia's guidelines. I'm not gonna edit it myself because frankly i'm not a wikipedia user and i don't want to inadvertently start an edit war. Maybe a critical reception section could be created (and sourced) like on other film articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.243.172 (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been, repeatedly. If the Anonymous editors repeatedly adding it continue, the vandalism will be removed and the page protected. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)