Talk:Man of Steel (film)

World release

According to the Superman Homepage, the movie will have will have its world premiere in New York on Monday night, June 10, 2013. Should we write that in the article? Leader Vladimir (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Kal El

Why the reverts? That's his name is not not? If it is referred to in film it needs a place. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)-- MisterShiney ✉ 19:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's not a credited name, then it doesn't go next to "Superman" and "Clark Kent".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lately someone has been adding the plot summary before the film's release. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am going to open a discussion on this matter as a completely uninvolved user. If anyone wants to add their thoughts on this matter, please discuss here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss...among just us, because the ones adding the summary are primarily IP users and new editors who probably will not come to this talk page. ;D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protected. Admittedly, three days might be overkill, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The film comes out tomorrow at midnight, three days might just be a bit too many. || Tako (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. I've modified it to 1 day. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The same thing happened over on Star Trek Into Darkness following the release in the UK and the US had to wait. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the US they had a midnigh showing on Thursday also, just saying, it should be fine to add it back in. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be find for someone else to add a plot summary that is within the criteria of the MOS. Not that bloated thing that has been added previously.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jauerback, why is the article fully protected as opposed to semi-protected? Seems like the latter would have worked better with the various novice edits to the plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• More to the point why is it protected at all? According to Warner's release schedule the film opened in several South American markets yesterday and many Asian ones today, so the plot is publicly verifiable. I disapprove that editors from these countries are effectively being barred from adding a plot summary just because American and European viewers won't see it for a day or so as per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ack, I retract my admonishment. It appears it was removed early on WP:COPYVIO grounds rather than verifiability concerns. If someone does come up with a reasonable plot summary on this talk page perhaps we can get the article unlocked and add it in? Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I chose full protection as one of the editors who was readding the plot summary was not a new user and would have been able to edit a semi-protected page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomatometer

While the page is locked...don't forget to update the tomatometer in the reception section! It's up to 114 reviews and sank down to 58%, a rotten rating. Thanks guys!! Briguy7783 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Only a administrator can do it because it is fully protected. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

Update Reception section based on the above user's comments. || Tako (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

No negative/mixed reviews cited? That is not telling of the mixed reception it has received on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. There is bias with regards to the reviews for they were obviously cherry-picked to favor the positive. They are mostly niche websites that just happened to give Man of Steel rave reviews. Why quote Screencrush.com when one could cite a review from the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Chicago Sun-Times or the Washington Post from well known critics-- reviews that are actually published in print? Industry websites like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are also commonly cited in reviews in Wikipedia. This section is not balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikatastrophe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 June 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

Request to change status to "Pending changes protected" to eliminate vandalism

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued

It's a bit embarrassing that the critical reception is described as 'mixed to positive'--it's extremely negative. The editor of Rotten Tomatoes said he was shocked at how badly critics responded to this movie, and that's proof in itself that 'mixed to positive' is not a valid description of the reviews. Wikipedia does not exist to promote anything. It exists to provide reliable information, as free of opinions and bias as humanly possible. As it currently stands, this article does not do that.Xfpisher (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Xpfisher, I removed that passage. See the discussion below for reliable sources we can use to describe the overall reception. In addition, look at Metacritic and see its positive, mixed, and negative breakdown. Maybe we can use that too. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I thank you for correcting that, but one more thing must be done--Rotten Tomatoes has a policy of referring to films with less than 60% reviews rated 'fresh' as being 'rotten'. Man of Steel could, theoretically, still get to 'fresh' territory, but it's looking very unlikely now. It is 'rotten' according to the site being used as a source--and the editor of that site has given strong indications of bias, saying he disagrees with the strongly negative critical reaction, meaning that his assessment of the film isn't really indicative of the critical reaction as a whole (even many of the reviews rated 'fresh' are actually quite negative, and very few are wholly positive). It's a badly reviewed movie--all the more when you consider the huge studio muscle behind it, which is going to influence critics to pull their punches a bit (one reason why a film has to be at least 60% 'fresh' to avoid being 'rotten'). And it's standard procedure on Wikipedia film articles that refer to the 'Tomatometer' to report whether a film is 'fresh' or 'rotten'. The film doesn't have a "56% approval rating", according to RT--the film is rated 'rotten' on RT. Because for a film like this, it's actually rather hard to have that low a score.Xfpisher (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "approval rating" is still accurate, and not as pejorative as saying "fresh" or "rotten". "Approval" does not necessarily mean 100% positive, and it's a reflection of the percentage, and not of what the critics are specifically saying. We typically do not use terms like "rotten" or "fresh" because they don't really convey anything other than a personal choice in identifying approval of a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: June 13

Please undo these edits, as the incorrect placement of the unreferenced Box Office figure renders the URL link in the reference unusable. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Breaking a record in the Philippines

The Man of Steel set the record of "highest opening day gross" ever surfaced the Philippines' cinemas. With a breaking record of first day gross (69.52 Million Pesos/ $1.7 million) in 94% of all cinemas in the Philippines beats the previous record set by Iron Man 3 last April with 62 Million Pesos. Is this information significant since it has set a record in a specific country?

Sources: [Click the City http://www.clickthecity.com/movies/?p=19062] [Comic Book Movie.com http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman_movies/superman_the_man_of_steel/news/?a=81489] [ABS-CBN News http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/06/13/13/man-steel-shatters-ph-box-office-records] jmarkfrancia (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

Phillip Cu-Unjieng from the Philippine Star says "MAN OF STEEL is definitely worth the wait... A reboot with true vitality makes Man of Steel the great first film in what we can only hope heralds a new Superman franchise series."

Read the full review here - http://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2013/06/14/953724/film-review-man-steel-reboot-iful-creatures jmarkfrancia (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pls add it to critical reception section if u find it useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Man of Steel review section and other film review sections

Why is it that every time someone puts the film was "met with mixed reviews" it gets removed as a "personal observation", yet pretty much every other film with a page on wikipedia that has a similar (or higher) score on Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic score its pretty much standard to put it was "met with mixed reviews"? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

IP is referring to this by Bignole. Since the film has been out for some time, we can find a reference to provide context to lead the section. We could use Los Angeles Times or CBS News to this end. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead can quote MetaCritic, which uses those terms, but as far as an overall assessment, we should not be subjectively interpreting Rotten Tomatoe's scores. It also seems unnecessary to do in that section when we have both a percentage of approval and a collected consensus from RT that breaks it down for us.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Movie vs film

This might be a longstanding debate but according to Answers.com, there is a difference between a movie and a film. Movies are captured and shot through photographic film. In the US, they are used as interchangeable terms, so it will not cause confuse if we use them as such.

• A movie refers to most major, commercial motion pictures aimed at a broad viewing audience (in the hopes of making a profit).
• A film is commonly applied to movies of an artistic or educational nature not expected to have broad, commercial appeal.

I started this topic because people keep replacing the worlds "movie" and "film" all over the article multiple times. So, which term would be more accurated to describe Man of Steel? Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Film" is preferred over "movie" for general use on Wikipedia. It's been that way for quite some time. Exceptions would be terms like monster movies in their full use. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, film is more widely used, as part of the name of categories for example. I would say that film can be used more broadly than movie. Documentary films aren't called documentary movies, as far as I know. Danrok (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting topic for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. GoingBatty (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Film" has generally been considered a more professional way of saying "movie" within an article, and we strive for the most professional writing. "Movie" comes across as amateurish, IMO, almost kid-like. I say "movie" when I talk to my friends, but I generally write "film" when I discuss something in literature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, and had commented on the matter at his talk page (our statements about the matter are near the end of that discussion). Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple conclusion: "Movie" is an informal term for "Film", and must not be used on formal occasions. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's just a simple opinion. See eg Chamber's Dictionary:

movie noun (movies) especially US 1 a cinema film. British equivalent film. Also called picture (noun 9). 2 (especially the movies) a cinema films in general; b the industry that produces them • He didn't make it in the movies. Also as adj • movie-maker • movie star. ETYMOLOGY: 1912: a shortening of moving picture.

They're entirely equivalent in meaning whatever you may feel. Actually, "movie" is a bit more logical, as it derives from "moving picture" which will always be true. "Film" however refers to a technology that is on its way out. (Did they shoot any of this "film" on actual film?) The choice is arbitrary, and you'll never get agreement on which is more correct. Just say "film" is the current preference and leave it at that. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Smallville?

Was Smallville actually named in the film? It is named prominently in the synopsis and elsewhere in the article, but I don't remember Clark's home location being specified any further than Kansas in the film. U-Mos (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Smallville was not named in the film. I removed it from the plot yesterday, but someone's restored it since. Fans have a tendency to take information from the comics and plug it straight into the film articles, regardless of how misleading this is. It's Thanos / the Cosmic Cube all over again. —Flax5 15:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Although not specifically mentioned as "Smallville" in the battle scenes in the town there is a giant water collector thing with Smallville written over it. So it is featured in the film. MisterShiney ✉ 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MisterShiney is correct. On a water tower, the word Smallville is written across it; I mentioned this to Bignole not too long ago when we were discussing the film. If WP:Reliable sources also describe the Clark Kent of Man of Steel growing up in Smallville, then there isn't a problem mentioning in this article that he does. For reference here on the talk page, this is the edit showing what U-Mos removed with regard to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, written on the water tower and I believe on a t-shirt somewhere in the film as well. Plus numerous sources refer to it as Smallville. Unless the film makes an effort to point out that it isn't Smallville, I think it should be left in. WP:UCS. Also, the "in order to gain access to important places without arousing suspicion" bit at the end seems highly speculative. SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@SoSaysChappy: - The front of the Sears building had "Smallville, Kansas" on it. Also, at the end of the film, when Clark describes his motivation for joining the Daily Planet, my recollection is that the "gain access" was the spirit of what he said. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's in the film, fair enough, though it feels strange that they avoided the town name in dialogue. —Flax5 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the naming of the town in the character bio, but not in the synopsis as Kansas is the dominant description of Clark's home scenes' location. U-Mos (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

World engine

The plot currently includes: "a terraforming "world engine" to transform Earth into a new Krypton". This isn't "terraforming", it's actually the opposite. (Anti-terraform? Kryptoform? Ugh.) I suggest just delete the word and link, it adds nothing except an incorrect buzzword. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)