Talk:Man of Steel (film): Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Comic book / American Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed. Comics: DC Comics / Superman / Films Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Superman work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Do we know yet if this movie will be Silver-, Golden-, Modern-age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouse914 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else find the Development section a bit confusing? Not the writers fault, the Development of the film and all its ideas and changes was convoluted. I'm just wondering if a different approach to the format of the section and describing it would help make a better wiki page? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone pls add that this film will feature Superman sans his RED UNDERWEAR? There are various sources to that. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide any reliable sources discussing the significance of him not having his red SHORTS (they aren't underwear). Should you do so, we can certainly add it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about these? [1] and [2] look very reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really say why they didn't include them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, just include that Man of Steel will be the first film to showcase Superman without the red "trunks", using the sources I mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably do that once we get more information on the production, particularly costume design. Right now, it's just trivia to state such-and-such is the first. DonQuixote (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's just trivia at the moment. Unless you could find enough information about the change in costume, their motivations and reasons etc etc to warrant a section...? On a personal note...I want to see the briefs! They were a part of my childhood putting my briefs on the outside of my trousers and running round pretending I was superman! MisterShiney ✉ 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found a source which describes more the costume, and why the red trunks were omitted. Use this [3] ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not really clear why they didn't put the shorts on him. He just says he looked at it and everyone said "no". Then he goes in circles about modernization of the suit and how this suit is tied closely to the original. I don't think he has a real reason for why he doesn't have the shorts, as what's on that page seems a littl convoluted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The movie's main producers are both British, and it's written by a British person. It should be American-British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The product is owned and produced by an American company (Warner Bros.), so that makes it American.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know, hence wahy i didn't say it's a British, or British-American movie, but calling a movie strictly "American" means it's entirely American, when this movie is not. It's only fair to call it American-British. The producers are British, the writers and one of the production companies as well (Syncopy films). This makes it an American-British movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we determine ownership. The movie, the characters, the rights are owned by an American company. Who is hired to make the actual film does not dictate the origin of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let's say a movie is entirely made by French, written, produced, screenplay, editing, production company etc, but it's distributed by an American company. That means that movie would be an American movie? That's not how it works. That would make Harry Potter movies American for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say distribution, I said owned. Anyone can distribute a film, it's about who owns it. Harry Potter would be an example of a joined ownership, because Warner Bros owns the film rights, but a British company owns the stories and the characters. It's about ownership. Also, please respect WP:BOLD. You made an edit that was disputed, please do not re-add it while there is an on-going discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's about who owns it, then that is partly Christopher Nolan, because he wrote it. And you're wrong anyway. That's not how it works. Look at any movie you want, "The girl with the dragon tattoo" for example, it's a Swedish-American-British-German movie, because there are more factors involved in making a movie other than the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan doesn't own the script, because he didn't write anything. Goyer wrote it and he sold it to Warner Bros, which makes it their property. As for TGwtDT, it's American/Swedish because MGM owns the film rights and Norstedts Förlag owns the source material. There is no German/British in there. I'm sorry, but you're the one that is mistaken. You need to stop thinking that just because there is a British cast, or a British director that it somehow means the film is British. It doesn't. They are hired help, nothing more. They don't own anything on the film. A company (or companies) own it, and that is how it is decided.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan didn't write anything? Look again on the main page. He wrote the story. And you can see even here on Wikipedia at the "The girl with the dragon tattoo" page that at country of origin there is, US, Sweden, UK and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You are contradicting yourself, you say the owner is the company who is sold to, and also the writer, and then you say Nolan who wrote it isn't the owner because he sold it to Warner Bros. In general, whatever company the movie is sold to, that company isn't the creator of the movie, that's stupid to say that Warner Bros made this or another movie. Inform yourself, it's not just about owners, it's about the people who actually created the movie.[reply]

First off, I never said the writer was the owner. You said that Nolan was the owner because he wrote Man of Steel. I said, he did NOT write Man of Steel, David Goyer wrote it. That said, Goyer sold his script to Warner Bros., so they own that regardless. I didn't contradict myself, I merely asserted how your identifying a script writer as "owner" does not compute, because they don't own their scripts. Warner Bros. did "make" the movie, because it is their money, plus the fact that they OWN the rights to the film. If Nolan owned anything then that means he could make a film if he wanted to with the same characters...he cannot. Warner Bros. owns Batman and Superman (and all DC Comics characters for that matter). They own the characters, the settings, the film rights, ...everything. That means that the country of origin for a Batman or Superman film (or for an Aquaman film if that's the case) will always be the United States. It doesn't matter if if the director they hire is British, German, or Dutch. Otherwise, you're arguing that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban should really be an American-British-Mexican film, because Alfonso Cuaron is Mexican and he directed the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever i don't care. But FYI that's just not how it works. The writer of a movie is the actual person to CREATE the movie, weather he sold it's rights to a production company is irrelevant, the movie's CREATOR is still the person who wrote it. If Bob Kane or Bill Finger were French for example, than the Batman movies would be partly French. It's not just about owners. The company buys a product that was already made by someone. Anyway doesn't matter, if you look on IMDB where many people get their info from, 99% of the movies are American. Inception is American, Harry Potter DH part 2 is American-British. Typical American propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing "creation" with "ownership". The field of "country of origin" is not based on who wrote the film or directed it (and BTW, the director would have as much say as a writer...and I see that you didn't comment on Alfonso Cuaron). Neither is the owner of the property in question, creative hands aside. We're identifying the "owner", not someone who "created" anything. As for IMDb, it's an unreliable website, so I could care less what it says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, but i think you're wrong , the country of origin section is exactly that, the origin where he movie was made, created, because you can entirely make a movie in one country and a company like WB who is the distributor can be from a totaly different country. Which one of those 2 is the "origin"? Anyway, believe what you want.

Let's put it this way. Do you have a reliable source actually calling it a "British-American" film? BTW, please read the definition of a "distributor" and a "producer", because who distributes the film has nothing to do with who owns the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the question pertains to "Official Trailer 3" at YouTube. -Mardus (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Man of Steel' is the first Superman film not to include 'Superman' in the title, just as 'The Dark Knight' was the equivalent for Batman. Furthermore, the film's producer, writer and composer worked on both. Is this connection notable? Could it be worked into the article? (Zedell (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see how without any direct commentary or reliable sources mentioning it...-- MisterShiney ✉ 19:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with and unsure how to locate Wiki policy on this, but does it have to when the facts are self-evident? Might it be said, very roughly, "As with Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', the film uses an alternate name for its superhero as the main title."?