DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Batman Returns

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Featured articleBatman Returns is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2026.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 12, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2022Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
November 4, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Reads like an essay by a fan.

[edit]

The text lacks encyclopedic tone. There seems to be a focus on praising the work, rather than documenting praise given by others. Much is repeated, which is hard to forgive in something this long. I propose a cleanup, starting with removing repeated assertions. Sterlingjones (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wrote it and I'm kind of mid on it, but it's always a successful discourse when you open your discussion by being rude. Do you have an example of repeated assertions? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, re-reading it, you don't make any sense, it's a neutral document of the film with a critical reception section describing it as polarizing. There's no "focus on praising the work", you need to be clearer in what your problem is rather than a) being rude, and b) giving no examples of anything. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand from your reply that you are the sole author of this article, that you feel a sense of ownership over it, and that my comments have offended you personally because you value objectivity and honestly believe that the text you have presented reads like an encyclopedia? Sterlingjones (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to contribute anything of use? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You started your replies to me with the assertion that my observation that the articles tone is wrong is "being rude". You have gone on to establish an adversarial tone in this dialogue. I am not interested in working on improving this article if you are telling me in advance that you think it's perfect as it is and are going to revert any changes made. But as an example, let's start with the first paragraph. The first two sentences provide meta information about the film. The third and fourth sentences contain plot summary. The fifth sentence lists cast members. This is not an example of proper paragraph structure. @[1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/paragraph-structure/
The second paragraph belongs in the Production section and lacks citations.
The third paragraph contains statements belonging in Marketing and Reception, and again lacks citations.
The fourth paragraph contains statements belonging in Modern Reception and Sequels. It also is written in persuasive style rather than expository...i.e. "Batman Returns has been reassessed as one of the best Batman films in the decades since its release, and its incarnations of Catwoman and Penguin are considered iconic." It seems that the writer is trying to convince the reader on a personal level that Batman Returns is a "good" movie. Such things aren't the job of an expository essay. Also, in order for the citations provided to support the notion presented, the reader has to understand the word "iconic" as meaning "good". Since that's not what "iconic" means, it causes the credibility of the article to falter. And again, it lacks citations, forcing the reader to find citations in later sections in order to discover the source of the assertion. Finally, the appeal to a faceless third party in the summary where it says "has been reassessed" implies consensus has been reached among the critical community, which is not the case and can therefore be considered deceptive.Sterlingjones (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You established an adversarial tone with your section title. You seem to be talking about the lede, which is a summary of the body text and doesn't need citations. It's standard across every article and is meant to be in 4 paragraphs so it's not possible or plausible to break the intro, cast, and plot into separate paragraphs. This is, again, standard. Anything in the lede is present and sourced in the body text, so if the distinct thing about those characters is that they're considered iconic, and it's undeniable that they are, particularly this version of Catwoman, then that's what the lede would summarize. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not going to have time to pay attention to this daily, but I have to say, we sure got off on the wrong foot here. You said, "You established an adversarial tone with your section title." By this, you must mean "Reads like an essay by a fan." I can only conclude you have a lower opinion of fans than I do. This was not meant to imply that the article is not well written. It's to say that the article does not successfully appear objective or detached. It is clear from the focus that you, like me, have an enthusiasm for this film, and you are hoping to maintain a decent public image for it. What I'm trying to contribute here is that you are including phrases that betray the fact that you are promoting the film, and such phrases will subvert your mission. In particular, "...has been reassessed as one of the best..." is a phrase that is not going to fly in the long run. It implies that an authority exists which stack ranks Batman films in a reliable way that's meaningful in an encyclopedia. Since there is not a critical consensus as to what makes a Batman film "good", it's very hard to defend this statement. I think you should modify or remove it. Please consult with other editors and see what they say. This is my last contribution to this discussion for the time being. I hope you understand what I'm saying here and that it helps in some way. Again, I do not think that writing an essay like a fan means it's poorly written. I'm sorry to have given that impression. Sterlingjones (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sterlingjones: While the writing has issues, writing, especially from Darkwarriorblake is pretty straightforwards. I understand what is being said here and how things might have gotten off on the wrong foot. Wording can always be improved and that is the beauty of editing on the site. I might try my hand at finding additional sources and some touch ups at a later date (if Blake is not deep into editing it of course). If not, I might emerge from my own little plain of existence and see what sources and information I can find that would be noteworthy of attention. Until then, keep at the edits, FA is clearly the goal here and I cannot wait to see another addition. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake is famous for his overestimations of his writing skills, and his denigration of others. Check out his recent comment at the Saving Private Ryan page: Restored revision 1309358007 by Darkwarriorblake: Your writing level is not where it needs to be to be making these changes.
2604:3D09:C77:4E00:9996:9908:18BE:F80 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD section seems dense and overstuffed to me. It think it provides too much information if you consider "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell" but equally I am not at all surprised some editors like it that way and are already pushing for this to be made a {{Featured article}}. I would encourage all editors to read the text of this article out loud before making any final judgements about its quality, I believe there is more to reevaluate here than some might think. Rather than simply state it in the abstract, here is one specific example, it seems strange to highlight uncredited rewrites of in the lead paragraphs, is that really key detail that most readers need to know immediately or is it a detail better left to the Production section? Also this article should be about this film, so could the last paragraph of the lead perhaps be more concise when talking about other films that aren't this one? -- 109.76.199.201 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Character name source theory

[edit]

I know that credit was given for the origin of the Max Shreck character, but, and might be going out on a limb here, so also not worth adding to the article without further confirmation from Waters or another source that can confirm. Was the Batman character of Shreck intended to portray a vampiric (to society) lean in regards to business or social practices that is often implied of rich people in the nature of one of the original Max Shreck's characters, specifically, Nosferatu?

Admittedly, I might just be reading way too much into this. 57.140.28.6 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page include the Batman Returns Jordan 6

[edit]

I feel like the costume part of this article should include the fact that they just used a custom Air Jordan 6. Thoughts? Ahyeahbaby (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of plot summary needs fixing

[edit]

Currently reads: In Gotham City, two wealthy socialites are horrified by the birth of their malformed and feral son Oswald, abandon him in the sewers, where he is taken in by a colony of penguins.

The verb agreement and clause structure is off - it mixes "are horrified" with "abandon", which creates a dangling subject.

Suggested fixes:

In Gotham City, two wealthy socialites, horrified by the birth of their malformed and feral son Oswald, abandon him in the sewers, where he is taken in by a colony of penguins.

or

In Gotham City, two wealthy socialites are horrified by the birth of their malformed and feral son Oswald and abandon him in the sewers, where he is taken in by a colony of penguins. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:9996:9908:18BE:F80 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary para 2

[edit]

Selina survives, returns home, designs a costume, and adopts the persona of Catwoman.

While technically accurate, it would be more descriptive, and vivid, to say she creates as the word design implies something conceptual only. Since she actually wears the costume, the word "creates" indicates both design and construction.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:9996:9908:18BE:F80 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary final para

[edit]

This sentence:

The Penguin emerges one last time but succumbs to his injuries and dies,...

"Succumbs to his injuries" and "dies" mean exactly the same thing. To avoid redundancy, delete one or the other. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:9996:9908:18BE:F80 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, contributors.

[edit]

Great job getting FA on this. I think the current edition is excellent. Thank you to all who contributed. Sterlingjones (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly that's credit to give Darkwarriorblake, Rjjiii (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]