Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2019 Articles for deletion Kept

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Comic book / American 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 This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comics: DC Comics / Films 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 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 Comic book films work group. 2010s Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Deleting this page is an act of suppression of a large group of people who have been covered globally by news outlets for their dedication and charity. The article is helping a lot of people to understand what happened and helping them in coming together. Do not put in words from tabloids, they've reported falsely. Zack Snyder himself told us that 130 minutes were deleted. Bjthegeek (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bjthegeek, I understand that you are passionate about this topic and I appreciate your enthusiasm to want to improve the article, but your recent edits have introduced factual inaccuracies, unverified original research, and language that doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view. The article is up for deletion for those exact reasons, so editing the article in this way will only increase its likelihood of being deleted, and continuing to ignore edit warnings may result in getting blocked or banned. Please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on adhering to a Neutral Point of View, avoiding Original Research, ensuring all information is Verifiable, and how to Identify Reliable Sources of information. No editor on Wikipedia, including myself, is permitted to revert the same edits more than three times, so please do not continue to add the same edits back to the article. I would highly recommend discussing the edits you'd like to see made to the article here on the talk page first, and bringing a reliable published source with you to that discussion for each individual edit. Can you do that? Fezmar9 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has a certain revelance, Wall Street Journal and the Hollywood reporter wrote about this, it is an precidence case of changing a director´s vision in Hollywood, is a atopic of many discussions, not only for comicbookfans but also for filmaker in general and people who are interested in art.. During the years became a larger interest. Bruce Banner (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Bruce Banner[reply]

Bruce, if you're looking for the article's deletion discussion, you'll find that here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Versions of Justice League. Cheers! 13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

seguomos en pie de lucha Los Seguidores de esta franquicia para Recuperar la Version Original de Liga de la.juativia del director Zack Snyder RobinhVilla87 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had corrected numerous spelling and grammatical errors and taken out the obvious bias of this article, which had eliminated the proposed deletion, but for some reason the errors were put back in and, lo and behold, the article is about to be deleted again. Tried to help, but to no avail. Good luck pal.

The article states the following: "Reportedly, Johns proceeded to reshoot the movie despite Affleck's and Terrio's objections." However, neither of the two sources (the second of which leads to a broken link) state anything supporting such a claim. Did I miss something?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two members of the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement flooded the page with bias and original research, often inserting their claims before existing citations (diffs). With the page up for deletion, I figured cleaning it up could be fruitless in the end. I plan on cleaning it up if the result is keep, and also trimming down the article per some opinions in the debate. Fezmar9 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks friend. If I may say, perhaps it would be better to just work on creating a purely objective piece than advocating for this article's deletion? I think enough information has come out that this is a worthwhile prospect. And having people like yourself active in the editing leadership field would prevent the Snyderbots from flooding it with more nonsense and original, unfounded research.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establish the focus of this article. I would say, rename it to Development of Justice League or something similar, and write from the inception of the film, Snyder's involvement, Snyder's retirement, Whedon's reshoots, release, the Snyder cut movement, and future. Most of this is already in the article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia community and the supervising admin have spoken - the Versions of Justice League page is here to stay. My stance on the issue was not wholly in line with Wikipedia policy, so we've an article for the time being. Considering I was the one who proposed its deletion in the first place, I think it only right I at least come forth with some proposals on how to make the article better. I'll try to keep the purview of my suggestions to the overall structure and focus of the article, as those edits made in the last week by people who discovered the issue through twitter and tried to bias it in favor of the hashtag movement and against the studio are already obvious enough candidates for removal.

• The infobox for the film itself should probably go. As mentioned during the deletion discussion by Erik, it is needlessly confusing for a reader, and gives the impression that a legitimate alternate cut has already been released. Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut, and Apocalypse Now Redux all use the template as they represent concrete alternate versions one can actually watch; this page is more comparable in content and intent to the Versions of Blade Runner article, which does not include such a template.
  •  Done by Erik. I only added this because it was on Versions of Blade Runner and assumed there was a reason why it was there. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again drawing comparisons to the Blade Runner page, the subsection "Original Snyder/Terrio script" should probably be minimized down to a single paragraph. Unless this page is retooled into a "Development of Justice League" article, a note that the film initially had a different concept and script is of little note. One can say much the same for any major studio film from the last twenty years, and it hardly constitutes a meaningful alternate version of the film. Even if the focus were to shift in such a way, I doubt noting that another director's film possibly contained storyboards that maybe hinted towards this original concept is of much note.
  • Yes, all films go through many iterations. But how many shared universe films dramatically change course of an entire franchise after the negative reception of a single film in that universe? I think this is a very unique situation that can't really be compared to anything else in cinema history, which was what originally drew me to create the article. So, I think you can find a lot of differences between Justice League and Blade Runner, but those differences shouldn't always impact this article. I think it's important to capture somewhere the original trajectory of the DCEU since it's going through some changes right now and likely won't look the same going forward. As pointed out in the AFD discussion, Wikipedia is full of brief descriptions (usually two paragraphs) of un-produced superhero films. And true to the article's title, it is indeed a version of Justice League. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The flow and focus needs a lot of work. Per the live version as I write this, the article moves from discussing the original concept, to describing the process of writing and shooting the Snyder Cut and outlining its plot description, to several massive subsections describing the online movement to get the film released, their activities at this year's San Diego ComicCon, and the backlash to the movement... and then moves to describing the outline for films that never entered preproduction and likely never would have. Only then does it return from this digression into describing current events to discuss the one intact, commercially available version of Justice League and how it differs from the Snyder Cut. The information about the proposed Justice League 2 and 3 should probably go entirely, as it is outside the article's purpose of describing alternate cuts of one movie. All the information regarding the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement and the reaction to them should go to the bottom of the page, and be shortened into a concise version of its present self. It doesn't seem right that the development of the film itself has less coverage vis a vis raw wordcount than the movement to get it released.
  • The article is currently sectioned off by each version and contains subsections with relevant information. It's not meant to be read as a beginning-middle-end story. I think the scrapped sequels have encyclopedic value, but I'm not sure that information would be better suited anywhere else because they are sequels specifically to the Snyder Cut version of Justice League. The development of the film has less coverage here because it already exists at Justice League (film) and shouldn't be doubled up. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a possible halfway proposal (and something of an olive branch to the folks who thought I had malicious reasons for wanting the article off Wikipedia), if the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut sections ARE indeed worthy of such detailed coverage, perhaps they should have their own article rather than bogging down the flow and focus of this one?
    • I cut the section about #ProjectComicCon. It seems like this group will not be letting up anytime soon and I don't think each little campaign they launch should have its own section. Just a sentence for each, tops. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The section on the theatrical release could probably stand a shortening. Much of its contents relate to the film's critical reception and events that took place in the fallout of its release, information one can already find on the main Justice League page. If this is indeed a page about alternate versions of the film, such info is best left to the page about the released product it pertains to. This section would be better focused on the substantiable reasons behind the change in director, and a description of the changes made to the film. And speaking of the changes...
  • When I wrote the page, it seemed odd to have a reception paragraph for the "Snyder Cut" but not for the theatrical release. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The bullet-pointed list should go. This set off the alarms in my head most when initially reading the article, and I still maintain it reads more like an itemized list of grievances against Warner Bros rather than an informative list in line with Wikipedia's standards. Some items (like the description of Green Lanterns in Snyder's version) are found integrated into paragraphs elsewhere on the page, some (like the description of Aquaman's original role or the description of Henry Cavil's reshoots) dovetail into justifications for the alterations where others are simply "this scene was added/deleted," and many (like the presence of Desaad, Zack Snyder's cameo, the military subplot, the Flash saving his love interest, the addition of Everybody Knows, and Steppenwolf's mother, just to name a few) are incredibly minor in comparison to such items as the deletion of Cyborg's story or, again, the handling of Cavil's Superman. I get a minor headache imagining properly sorting through all these bullet points, selecting the most important information, and condensing it all down into two or three paragraphs, but they represent the article's biggest problem, and need correction as soon as possible.
  • I think this is the most important part of the article because it actually details the differences between the two major versions of the film, and compared to most altered films in cinema history, the changes here are very significant. Some film articles can get away with a passing mention in a section about a Home Release (ex: Watchmen § Home video and Alien § Home video) but the changes between those versions are so minor that they could get away with a short paragraph. Other articles such as Changes in Star Wars re-releases, The Godfather Saga, The Shining (film), Cool Runnings, The Magic Roundabout (film), Godzilla 1985 get into the weeds because the differences between versions are significant and are either listed out with bullets or written about in paragraphs. I would go so far as to argue that the differences between versions is the defining aspect of the page and it should be deleted without this information. As I said in the AFD discussion, I am open to trimming, but I am not in any way open to its entire removal. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Black Suit edit section doesn't need to be here. Comparatively tiny thing to end on, yes, but it added to my impression that a fan looking to promote the movement wrote this page rather than someone with proper encyclopedic intentions, and until it releases and we can see what the media reaction is/how it plays into the overall story, it's a dangling thread with little notability.
  • I don't think an argument of this being a "tiny thing to end on" really holds much weight. Like, the last section on the Cancer page about "other animals" is kind of a downer and is also just a few sentences, but that's not reason to remove it. Wikipedia articles aren't written from a beginning-middle-end storyline perspective. This article is arranged by version chronologically, and that just happens to be the most recent version. I disagree that it has little notability. The fan-edit community seems to exist in a bubble and is very rarely reported on and specific cuts very rarely get any media coverage at all. The fact that there are already a handful of news articles out there, I think, establishes Wikipedia notability for a three-sentence mention. During my research I came across the twitter account Justice League: The Animated Movie, which I believe to be an amateur animator who is recreating the Snyder Cut. I specifically didn't mention this in the article anywhere because it has no media coverage. I also came across four fan edits of Batman v Superman that I also believe have no place on Wikipedia. The Black Suit Edition stands out from these other examples because of its coverage, and I think three sentences is an appropriate amount of weight at this time. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are my (incredibly broad) first round suggestions for how to improve the article. Fezmar9, I leave the ball in your court to respond. I hope this discussion proves fruitful and produces a better article. Gargus-SCP (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (PST)

I think I interpreted your AFD nomination to largely be against the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement section, but after reading this rundown, I think that's the only thing you want to keep. I have a feeling that this conversation won't progress very far with just two people holding such opposing views on every point, so if anyone has any additional input, please chime in! If no substantial third opinions are added in the next week, I'll submit the article for either WP:RFC or WP:3O. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am, if anything, inclined to agree with you that the article requires trimming more than out and out removal. Removal was in line with what I initially thought necessary, and since the discussion concluded with "keep," I think the focus should shift towards making a tighter article. If this information can be consolidated down, so it serves as a summary of the most important points about the film's development rather than a sprawling point-by-point breakdown of every possible relevant detail, it would read a whole lot smoother and function better as an encyclopedic entry on the topic. Given some time (a few days at least, my plate's pretty full and I'm trying to not let Wikipedia dominate my time just because it's a new thing in my life), I could probably cut through what I think is wrong with the bullet-pointed list in particular, and try to make a proposal version I think would function a whole lot better, if you'd be open to such a thing. Gargus-SCP (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2019 (PST)

Yeah, I'm open. I'm more of a visual learner anyways. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In re-reading Changes in Star Wars re-releases and thinking about the large bulleted list, I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to change the section title to "Significant differences between versions" and include subsections where details could be discussed in prose. Possible subsections could include (but not limited to) "Final Russia battle scene", "Characters removed", "Character back stories removed", "History flashback sequence", etc. Anything that wouldn't fall under one of these buckets would be removed, but the references would still remain. An intro sentence to the section would explain that this is a non-exhaustive list and other minor changes have been reported in the media and the other references could be moved here for readers interested in learning more. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so on my user page, I've drafted up a rough approximation of what I think the bullet-pointed information would ideally look like if integrated into the existing article structure via paragraphs. I kept as much as I could from the list by chunking it out into two paragraphs detailing major and minor alterations, and further dividing them into subject-oriented sentences. It's mostly focused on characters and plot elements that were added or deleted, alongside changes to action scenes, color grading, and certain deleted/added scenes. I couldn't figure how to keep the notes on the second Knightmare sequence, the addition of Everybody Knows, Steppenwolf's mother, the additioanl presence of some characters in certain scenes, etc etc, without breaking the flow I established, so I'm open to hearing suggestions on how to do so if possible. The phrasing is a little sloppy and extremely Spartan (lots of repeated sentence structure, doesn't feel quite up to Wikipedia standards), but it's a first pass, and I'm interested in what you make of it. Your alternate suggestion for structuring it after the Changes to Star Wars films page does have merit, though I'd prefer to try and work on a paragraph-based solution first. Gargus-SCP (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2019 (PST)

I think you did an excellent job of condensing such a long list of information into such small paragraphs. However, it still reads like a list of information to me. Let me take a stab at a more sectioned off style in a draft space to show you what that might look like. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a rough draft of how I think a sectioned version of this information might look at User:Fezmar9/sandbox6. In terms of both page length and character count, it's about half of what's currently live on the page and made at least 15 bullet points completely irrelevant. As I've said before, part of what determines inclusion and notability on Wikipedia is media coverage. In a recent example, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide and the media went wild with conspiracy theories. In two days there was enough media coverage to create the page Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, which is likely to survive its AFD. While there are several films that are noted for being dramatically altered in post-production (Suicide Squad and Fantastic Four come to mind immediately) none of them have thousands of articles covering the differences between cuts that continue to pop up years after the release and show no signs of slowing down. In fact, a handful of new details came to light since you last commented. Justice League is a very unique situation in cinematic history and should not be treated the same as other films on Wikipedia that usually have a paragraph at most detailing differences between versions. While I'm happy to work together to trim and edit where needed, I don't think this section should be reduced to two small paragraphs because the sheer number of differences and the amount of media coverage is significant. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fezmar9: At the AFD, you said I felt I neutrally added information whether it was positive or negative. Both the "The "Snyder Cut" (2016–2017)" and "#ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement" sections include criticism paragraphs. but I can't actually find that.

The mainstream view of this matter appears to be that a "Snyder Cut" doesn't actually exist, but this article seems structured to convince the reader that it must exist, and Versions of Justice League##ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement contains, with the exception of one bit of lip service (Yohana Desta of Vanity Fair described the act of fans demanding an alternative cut as an example of toxic fandom, placing it in the same vein as the 2017 harassment of Star Wars: The Last Jedi actress Kelly Marie Tran.) no criticism like inclusion of the fact that the movement is, like many other Internet activism movements, apparently motivated by an alt-right, anti-feminist mentality (the kind that says Snyder should get credit for Wonder Woman). Instead we include an entire paragraph about how great the movement is at donating to charities.

Was the Yohana Desta of Vanity Fair described the act of fans demanding an alternative cut as an example of toxic fandom, placing it in the same vein as the 2017 harassment of Star Wars: The Last Jedi actress Kelly Marie Tran. what you meant when you said the section included a "criticism paragraph"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs I was referring to that are not favorable of the subject are the following:

Warner executives who saw his cut noted that Snyder made significant efforts to lighten the tone following the criticism of Batman v Superman.[3] After the release of Aquaman, the movie was said to have a similar tone to the "Snyder Cut".[44] Despite this, Warner was still unhappy with the results and test audiences reportedly described the cut as "unwatchable".[45] The first two trailers for Justice League used footage from the "Snyder Cut" before Whedon's contributions,[46][47] and were subject to a mixed reception.[48][49][50][51] Neil Daly, who oversaw the test screenings, said test audiences ranked Batman and Superman the lowest of the main cast.[52] Warner reportedly stated it has no plans of releasing an alternate cut of Justice League.[53]

Other figures are less optimistic that the "Snyder Cut" will ever be released. Citing industry sources, writer Mario F. Robles said Warner doesn't trust Snyder's vision and aren't willing to spend the millions of dollars it would cost to finish his cut.[78] Brooks Barnes, Hollywood reporter for The New York Times theorizes that the "Snyder Cut" will never be released due to a mix of the high cost to finish the project and corporate ego. He elaborated: "The ego kind of comes in where, like, no studio will ever put itself in a position of looking like they made the wrong decision. Let's just say it was finished, they put it out, everyone loves it, 'Oh my God, this should have been the movie.' That puts jobs at risk at the high level. Right? And so right there, it's not happening."[2] Yohana Desta of Vanity Fair described the act of fans demanding an alternative cut as an example of toxic fandom, placing it in the same vein as the 2017 harassment of Star Wars: The Last Jedi actress Kelly Marie Tran.[79] Writing for Forbes, Scott Mendelson suggested it would be more likely for audiences to see either an animated or comic-book adaptation of Snyder's script than a polished, full-length feature film being finished and released.[80]

In my research, the sources that claim the cut doesn't exist pre-date quotes from involved parties that say not only does a cut exist, but multiple do. So, I think logically the recent quotes that prove the existence of multiple cuts should be given considerably more weight than the outdated ones (that don't actually cite any source on the matter, they just claim it).

In my research I never once saw any sources that said either the entire movement or a part of the movement includes members of the alt-right movement, but if those sources exist, by all means, let's get that information in there! I'd also be personally interested to see those sources for another article I'm drafting about toxic fandom; that narrative keeps popping up in my research for that topic. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is not "criticism" but plain statement of facts (assuming it doesn't misrepresent its sources; I haven't checked). The second paragraph is not criticism of the ReleaseTheSnyderCut "religion" but rather citation of some sources that are skeptical of the prospects of the Snyder cut ever being released, which still assume that such a film actually exists somewhere, the one exception being the Desta sentence I already cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, is that no? There are no sources that confirm your claim that members of the movement are also misogynists and alt-righters? Also, I think you're taking my comments out of context. In the AFD I was suggesting I was not biased because I included a paragraph that essentially says Snyder fell short of expectations, delivered a film that was so "unwatchable" the studio refuses to release it, and even those who saw the trailers didn't know what to make of it. If I was biased, I don't think I would add a paragraph like that, I would sweep that information under the rug and pretend it didn't exist. I do not believe these paragraphs constitute harsh, detailed critical commentary. Also, just to be clear about your earlier statement, do you believe the sentence Ahead of the 2019 San Diego Comic-Con, a fan launched a crowdfunding campaign with half of the funds going toward an advertising campaign including billboards and a flying banner ad promoting the "Snyder Cut", and the other half will be donated to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.[76][77] is not a plain statement of fact, but a statement of praise—one that does not simply state what happened, but one that shows how "great" they are and showing overwhelming positivity and support for the movement? One that's practically begging readers to sign a petition and rally in the streets? Is that correct? If so, we may have very different definitions of "neutral".

Both of your comments here seem to suggest you don't believe the "Snyder Cut" exists. As a neutral party who has witnessed comments from both sides of the divide in my research for this page, here is what I understand. Absolutely no member of the movement believes there exists a 100% complete version of the film that Warner is just sitting on but could upload to YouTube in the next five minutes should they so desire. Instead, what they refer to as the "Snyder Cut" is a partially complete version that was shown to test audiences or executives. They either want to see that version, or they want Warner to pay to finish that version to make it 100% complete. Per the article itself: Principle photography was shot entirely using 35 mm film[24] and wrapped in December 2016.[25] Months later, multiple cuts of Snyder's Justice League were shown to Warner executives, in addition to friends and family of Snyder.[26][25] A final run-time and picture lock were achieved, though the cuts had incomplete VFX shots, partial audio mixing and Junkie XL's soundtrack was mid-way through production.[27][28] During an event, Snyder said that he had multiple cuts that were essentially "done," only needing "a few CG tweaks" to complete, but that it was ultimately up to Warner to release it.[29][30] This mostly finished version of Justice League is what's often referred to as the "Snyder Cut". The existence of this rough cut has been confirmed by Snyder himself and Jay Oliva who worked on the film and others, and was widely reported on. Even the Vanity Fair article titled "Justice League Fans Still Desperately Hoping for Snyder Cut That Doesn’t Exist" (emphasis mine) states "Per the W.S.J., insiders who actually worked on the film said that the director did make a rough cut of the movie after principal photography was finished, but it was not one that was meant to be released" — that's it, right there, that's the rough "Snyder Cut" that sources claim doesn't exist and members of the movement want to see one day. Any source that claims it doesn't exist either does not understand the distinction that fans actually want to see that incomplete rough cut, or they're ignoring the sources that have demonstrated this version of the film actually exists. And I don't know a neutral way to represent both sides of that in a way that doesn't sound sarcastic or moronic: "The director says he made a rough cut and his storyboard artist who helped make the film confirms it exists, but people who are unrelated to the film disagree and say it doesn't exist."???? Either it exists or it doesn't, and the people who made it say it does, so...

At any rate, I am not here to argue, I am here to improve the article where needed. With this edit, I added more less-than-favorable statements that suggests at least some of the members of the movement are toxic as well as additional beliefs why the Snyder Cut may never see the light of day. I'll look for more tomorrow and will continue to crap on this movement until neutrality is achieved in the eyes of those who think this article is too pro-Snyder. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And with this edit I've created an entire paragraph dedicated to the movement's toxicity. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The aggressive, negative aspects of the group should definitely be noted. I think some of the extensive quotes may be a bit much, because we're putting a lot of weight into one person's opinion about toxicity and the DCEU as a whole, versus just reporting on what negative actions they actually committed. To be neutral, one should definitely show both sides of a coin, so I don't think removing it entirely is the answer. Also, just to point out, you cannot "libel" a non-descript group. They (you're) not an identified organization, you're a collective of like-minded people. Secondly, if it's factual, it's not libel. So, arguing for the removal of an entire paragraph on the grounds of libel would be inaccurate and baseless. The nuts and bolts: Trim out the excess quoting that has nothing to do with anything specific. Focus on the documented acts, both good and bad.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With these two edits I took a stab at trimming the excessive quotes and focusing on the toxic acts they've committed. I also added a couple recent positive headlines they've made lately as well (they were on my to-do list anyways). Fezmar9 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting there. I would be careful of using weasel words like "some", because it's not attributable. Try other phrases like, "A group of fans have been accused by media members of harassment and threats when those media members have expressed opinions about the Snyder Cut that is contrary to that of the movement." We should not personally be using words like "toxic", because that's a judgement. To remain neutral, we should report neutrally. A specific person using the term "toxic" is different than us using that term when we write. Additionally, I'm not sure if there has actually been any real attack on this page, and I'm not sure that I would give such weight to a random person saying "go create accounts and change the page". The most that has happened, that I could see, is an IP showing up blanking the section as "libel". The reality though, is that the section needed to be fixed as it was not written from an actual NPOV. It's prompted discussion about tweaking the wording, while also reporting the facts. That's true for a lot of film articles, and we don't typically write about how people have vandalized Wikipedia in those cases. I would say that unless there are multiple news sources reporting on how this movement has created an influx of edits to this page to be a specific view, then it should probably go. We haven't reached a point that we have fully protected the page, only semi-protected so you have to register to edit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the Wikipedia editing mention pending additional coverage, and I'll address the weasel words at some point this weekend, but I have a question about the direction on "toxicity". There are at least five sources currently in the article that specifically use the word toxic[1][2][3][4][5] and I was able to easily find three more that aren't currently in the article[6][7][8]. There are also many more that highlight the Zack Snyder's fanbase as being "the worst" that don't use the word toxic, including this Vulture article[9] among others. It's clear that a negative image (specifically toxicity) is a talking point on this subject. The paragraph in question includes three attributed mentions of the word toxic, and an intro sentence introducing this as a paragraph about toxicity and negative behavior. I'm assuming your comment is about the use of the word toxic in the intro sentence with no attribution, but if it's simply introducing the topic where sourced information will follow, can we really say Wikipedia is personally describing the movement as "toxic"? Fezmar9 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "toxic", there are 2 instances where "Toxic" isn't in quotes. One intros, and one is paraphrase of someone's words. Generally, I wouldn't use that term period, unless it was directly quoted. It would fall into those peacock terms. Typically peacock terms are used as "puffery" if you will, but I would argue that the alternative side of that could still be considered peacock, because at its whole the idea is that the description doesn't stick to the facts or rely on a direct quote of someone's words. If you're sticking to the facts, then the only time "toxic" or any judgmental word for that matter is used would be when quoting someone else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page was up for deletion and the result was to keep. I agree with that decision and think the page should stay but do you think the name should be changed? (Which is technically moving the page but you know what I mean. I found the page through a Google search for "Snyder Cut" and was very glad to find the page, but at first I thought it was some mistake as "Versions Of Justice League" sounds like a page on alternate versions of the Justice League group not versions of the Justice League movie. I thought this might have been about the Evil Justice League from Dimension X, the golden age Justice Society, the dream Justice Alliance that a mutant kid made up etc. etc. Or different portrayals of the group in different media over the decades. From the title I really didn't think it would be about different versions of the movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm GLAD that I was wrong because I was looking for the information in this article, I just think it would be better suited with a different name.82.18.205.199 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions or ideas as to what it should be changed to? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested Development of Justice League. Make it similar to Development of Windows Vista, that is, a chronological summary of what happened. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Production of Justice League, similar to Production of Jurassic World? This would go beyond just a page move and would probably require some rewriting and maybe expansion. Not an objection, just a note. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually put a lot of thought into restructuring the whole article and changing the title to Production of Justice League (film). Three months ago I even started an draft outline of what that could look like at User:Fezmar9/sandbox6 and intended to fill it out, but I have almost zero free time to devote to Wikipedia anymore. Feel free to borrow ideas from that draft and update this page if you'd like! Just throwing in my two cents. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"@Julian1Seguin8: Please open up a discussion at Talk:Versions of Justice League instead of my personal talk page so that other editors can join the conversation and this becomes less of a me vs you thing. When you open that discussion, please also provide more substantive evidence than "someone followed someone on Twitter, that PROVES I'm right!". Wikipedia uses official, published sources that very clearly and explicitly support claims added to articles. You're going to need a published source that says "Snyder is currently working with Warner to complete his film" outright if you want to make that claim on Wikipedia. You're going to need a published source that says "the 'Snyder Cut' is 100% complete and doesn't need any additional pickups, sound editing, or CGI" outright if you want to make that claim on Wikipedia. Short of that, you're just speculating, reading between the lines and promoting unsubstantiated internet gossip as truth, and this is not the platform for that kind of behavior. Also, your edits actually REMOVED a citation that used Snyder's Vero picture of film canisters, so if you wanted this to stay then please exercise caution when making edits to Wikipedia. See you over at Talk:Versions of Justice League! Fezmar9 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)"

@Fezmar9: I am not using Twitter as confirmation, just as a sign. It does not prove I am right, nor did I ever say it did. I would appreciate it if you refrained from manipulating my words. I never said outright that Snyder was working with Warner yet, but there is evidence that the photo came from the headquarters. "Short of that, you're just speculating, reading between the lines and promoting unsubstantiated internet gossip as truth, and this is not the platform for that kind of behavior." I am doing nothing that you haven't been doing. Taking a post that is over a year old and using it as confirmation of something currently does not work. It does not matter if a new statement has yet to be released because the last statement is no longer current. I am not reading between any lines when I saw the film was finished filming and that picture lock and been completed. That already outright contradicts Kevin Smith's statement. Sure he could have meant that the rough-cut was not meant for mass consumption, but he has failed to prove any of this. He has no listed sources and no one has come forth, not even anonymously to back him up. Remind me again, why we take his word over Jason's?

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: So, no new sources to support your claims then? When you alter WB's statement to past tense, it implies a change or new development, which there is no stated evidence that this is true. Just like if I said "I used to hate sushi" it implies that I now feel differently. We don't want to imply this to readers if we can't back it up with anything. We don't need to check back in with WB annually to see how they feel each year, we just need a new statement that suggests they feel differently now, which isn't the case yet, so we can assume their old statement still holds true until otherwise noted. Also, there were two publications that reported this was still true last month, so this isn't even worth getting into. On the Momoa statement, aside from the page being bogged down with a ton of commentary already and this not really adding anything new or interesting to the conversation, it's speculative the way you wrote it and the implications are patently false. There are dozens of sources that discuss to what degree the film is incomplete. For example, Danny Elfman, who was closer to the post-production work than Momoa, recently said Snyder's version was left unfinished. To say "picture lock" is confirmation that it's complete is false, as even according to the source you brought to my talk page explicitly states, "This does not mean visual effects or audio mixing is completed..." To say Kevin Smith listed no sources suggests you didn't read this Wikipedia article or the associated sources—he says he spoke to multiple people "at various levels" of the film's production. Again, if you want to make the claim that WB has changed their stance on the cut or that the film is 100% complete, you need to provide a published source that says exactly that. What you have provided so far does not say exactly that so the page should not be updated in these ways at this time. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fezmar9: Oh god, you DIDN'T. You did not use Danny Elfman as a source. He may have been "closer" to post-production, but in case you forgot, he never worked with Snyder on set. He was literally making the score based off of the storyboards. https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2017/11/danny-elfman-scored-much-justice-league-storyboards/ And I know that Kevin says he spoke to multiple people but none of them have verified his story. Beyond that, though, I confess that I have less to contribute. But I do know that the runtime of 214 minutes is confirmed and the assembly cut was over 5 hours, so that should be added. --Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Regardless of whether Elfman used filmed footage, storyboards or Whedon making shadow puppets under a bridge, he has background knowledge of how the film was created—the format of his work has no bearing on his ability to obtain this information and both things can be true. I do see that there are sources for the 5 hour assembly cut, so I've added it. I don't think this is something that typically gets added to a Wiki film page, but it seems relevant since some sources are casting doubt on what the "Snyder Cut" actually is. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fezmar9: Just so we're clear... so I'm clear, as long as it's a published source, with someone connected to the movie, that is acceptable? It is possible Danny Elfman MAY know the true status of the Snyder Cut, but he seems fuzzy on the details. Also a lot of sources twist his statement. Some claim he INSISTS but he's only said it once. Also, we know Danny Elfman did not enter the post-production until June 2017, one month after Snyder left for good. It seems unlikely that he would know the exact details. Granted I understand it is speculation but Zack Snyder himself said he had a completed version. This is from Screen Rant: https://screenrant.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-cut-exists-confirmed/ I know this has been used before but it is a published source and Snyder's word definitely outweighs that of Elfman. At the very least, it backs up the statement that the Snyder Cut needs a few CG Tweaks. This is already in THIS article so Danny Elfman's statement feels unwarranted.

Just saying.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8}[reply]

I'm not interested in adding it to the article, as I said it's too cluttered with commentary already and this wouldn't really add anything, I was just saying your logic made no sense. It's like saying "Julian can walk so it's impossible for him to know how many wheels are on a wheelchair"—it's absolutely possible to both be abled and also know how many wheels are on a wheelchair, one is not a necessary condition for the other. Similar to how it's possible to not be on set (which no soundtrack composers ever are anyways?) and use storyboards as the basis for a soundtrack instead of film, while also having knowledge of how complete another film was. Those statements can both be true; one is not a necessary condition for the other. It may be the case that Elfman has no idea what he's talking about, but categorically not for the speculation you've provided. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your analogies. They come off as condescending and do not relate in any way to what I am arguing. Of course it's possible for Danny Elfman to know something. But that was never the core of my argument. My argument is that Zack Snyder would know if he finished is Cut or not, and Danny Elfman would not know more than he does. This whole wheelchair statement is nonsense. Yes I can walk and I know how many wheels are on a wheelchair, but I don't know what's like to be in a wheelchair all day and I have no idea who made it. You are oversimplifying this and treating me with disrespect. So if you are not interested in adding something that is no less questionable than the article that you are using, I need a better answer than "it's too cluttered". Because there is no speculation. Snyder said he had a cut that was done and that means more than what Danny Elfman says. If nothing else, stop acting like I'm somehow unintelligent. --Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

I understand that the movement has a dogmatic relationship with Snyder's "it's done" comment, but it has been grossly taken out of context and is not supported by literally anything else, including at least two of Snyder's own claims. There are exactly zero additional sources that support the "it's done" comment, that as I've said to you before, was recorded behind the scenes and without his knowledge and should absolutely not be treated like a well-thought-out media statement. Dozens of other sources have stated the film is incomplete and even gone into detail about how incomplete it is, and most of the articles that covered both "it's done" and the new canister pic call the completeness into question. The ScreenRant article you've provided to back up your claims even says Snyder "still needed to finish VFX" and that "the studio could have cold feet committing more money to finish the cut." So, no, you have not provided sufficient evidence that there exists a 100% complete version of the film. Since the only sources that interpret Snyder's "it's done" comment to be entirely accurate are commentary and theories on social media—not reliable, published sources—this would also fall under what Wikipedia refers to as giving undue weight to minority held opinions. Per the policy, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all [...] For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. [...] Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Fezmar9 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever recall you saying that "additional sources" were required. And now there is some Furthermore, now it seems that you are the one speculating when you assume that Snyder was unaware of his being recorded simply because he wasn't looking. And even if he wasn't, that should not diminish his statement. Just rephrase it as "Snyder was overheard mentioning..." And as for the dozens of other sources, none of them actually know what's going on, either. And as for the Screen Rant article, first off, stop with the "air quotes" because that's rude and unnecessary. Second, I said it myself that it backs up the idea that the cut requires a few CG tweaks, not that it was %100 finished. Too bad you weren't reading that carefully enough. Oh, and it doesn't actually say "Snyder still needed to finish VFX". It was referring to a report from the year before. Again, you didn't read it carefully. And this isn't the only example. Games Radar quotes it as well https://www.gamesradar.com/zack-snyder-confirms-that-the-justice-league-snyder-cut-is-real-and-done/ And from from Bleeding Cool News https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/03/31/the-snyder-cut-is-real-says-zack-snyder-and-its-apparently-214-minutes-long/. But the biggest detail is Snyder explaining how it is up to Warner Bros to release it. "It's up to them," he says. He was not referring to completing VFX and audio mixing because Snyder handles that himself. The VERO post shows the film in the canister, which you already acknowledged. Look, I am not asking for the article to outright to declare that the cut is finished. I cannot prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt because I don't have the right sources. But I do know there's enough here to imply that the cut is more complete than what Kevin Smith claims it to be. So at the very least, I think his quote should NOT stand out.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate on implications. Please read our policy on not publishing original research. Per the policy, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Fezmar9 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be adequate proof to add back Snyder's quote that "all the hard creative choices are done." https://twitter.com/Theseus_2good4U/status/1209619275259858944 --Julian1Seguin8 —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, your edit re-introduces grammatical errors after an editor contributed valid copy edits, re-introduces a broken link and adds an additional quote in front of a citation that does not support the new quote. This is not a valid or helpful edit. As to what you're trying to add, I am inclined to believe Zack Snyder did not actually say that. Both the source in the article and other social media posts have a screenshot of the same quote that does not include the phrase "all the hard creative choices are done." This movement is actually notorious for photoshopping images to fit their own personal narratives. But even if Snyder did actually say that, the quote is too ambiguous to actually mean anything. A "hard creative choice" is not a tangible thing and doesn't actually tell our readers anything of substance, it only means what you personally interpret it to mean. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You and your miserable hypocrisy. You speculate as much as I do, and have the nerve to act like you don't. Here is a link: https://theplaylist.net/zack-snyder-justice-league-images-20191226/ You claiming that the Snyder Cut has a "notorious rep" for photoshopping is meaningless because it does not prove anything. Also, this https://www.facebook.com/messenger_photo?fbid=967191947010471. And even with that in mind, you are also conveniently leaving out the part that is still there. "Not sure what difference it makes as to the finished level of the film" That could easily be interpreted to mean that Snyder could release the Cut as is, but that he's still tinkering around with it, like every other director and you LEFT THAT OUT. --Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

The image at The Playlist ALSO does not include the phrase "all hard creative choices are done" (the text does, but the screenshot they're using as their source does not) and the facebook link was blocked -- based on the URL it could be an image from a conversation and not a public post. Mentioning the movement's affinity for photoshopping images was meant to explain the discrepancy in what these images show: some screenshots mention "hard creative choices," others do not. If there's even a chance it was photoshopped, it should not be included on Wikipedia. I chopped the quote because it was excessively long and didn't seem to add much to the gist of what he was saying, not because of some "deep state club 40 agenda" or "miserable hypocrisy" or whatever you'd like to believe. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtj456:, you have added the following sentence to the article without a supporting source: "Superman also wore the black suit the entirety of the film and would continue wearing it for the next 2. He would revert to the classic suit at the conclusion of his arc." This is heavily disputed. It may have been Snyder's intention to go this direction, but WB was not supportive of the black suit and it's not 100% clear if it would have appeared in Snyder's theatrical cut at all and for what amount would it have appeared if it did. While members of the cast and crew have discussed a black suit making an appearance, it appears Cavill filmed all of his scenes wearing his classic blue suit and Snyder was hoping to convince WB to color correct it to black in post-production. Obviously those conversations never took place because Snyder's role was cut short, and it's not clear how those conversations would have gone had they actually happened. From ScreenRant's coverage of the black suit debate:

Snyder says his cut of the movie will have Superman wearing the black suit, but we know from set photos and deleted scenes that the movie was shot with Cavill always wearing a blue suit. Snyder even shot the classic Christopher Reeve style shirt rip ending scene with the blue suit. Snyder agreed to film the movie in the blue suit hoping to convince WB to convert to the black suit during post-production where the suit could easily be color corrected to the black and silver version as seen in the Death and Return of Superman arc in the comics. While changing the suit to black was a possibility, looking at the sheer amount of pushback to Snyder's ideas in Justice League, it's hard to see him ultimately winning that battle, at least not as much as he wanted. Even if Superman wore the black suit, it likely wouldn't be the entirety of the movie as he originally planned.[10][11]

Please do not add this back to the page without further discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit odd that there is an article for all the versions of this film when there are literally only two versions of the film, one of them already has an entire article dedicated to it, and a big section of this page is actually about two other films. Wouldn't it make more sense to have one article about the film in general / the theatrical release, include details about the planned sequels at the end of that article like we normally would, and then let this article just be about the Snyder Cut. I can understand why some may have been hesitant to do that in the past, but now that the Snyder Cut is actually going to be released and there is clearly enough coverage of it out there I think we should take this opportunity to reorganize these articles so they make more sense. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97, that's what I was thinking, too. This article is almost entirely about the Snyder Cut. I'd move this page to "Zack Snyder's Justice League", and move a lot of the development info back into the main article. JOEBRO64 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a draft at User:TheJoebro64/drafts/snyder that we can use to redo the article. JOEBRO64 22:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support using your draft as a basis to get everything into the correct place. I don't want to get too involved at the moment but I might be able to help clean some stuff up once the articles have been re-arranged. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the above discussion at § Page Title, a few including myself felt this page should be restructured and renamed Production of Justice League (film). Even if you have two pages for the theatrical release and Snyder's HBO Max version, there's still a lot more to the long, complicated story of the production of this film that will hang in the air as to which of the two pages it belongs on. My two cents: Production of Justice League (film) should capture the full production story, and Justice League (film) and Zack Snyder's Justice League should summarize and redirect to Production of Justice League (film) for further reading as/where needed. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that too. I think we should move this first, then all pitch in to help with my draft and get it mainspace'd. JOEBRO64 01:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fezmar9, I'm going to be bold and move the two pages. JOEBRO64 14:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of boldness. Well done! Fezmar9 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article just be called "Production of Justice League", without the "(film)" at the end, since it's not being differentiated with another article of the same name? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 22:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna Know My Name? Later, I'd normally support this, but I feel like removing the (film) could confuse readers into thinking that this article is about the Justice League team, not the film itself. JOEBRO64 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the film article needs disambiguation then it can help to include that in sub articles like this to be clear which parent article we are referring to. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where should Ray Fisher's allegations and the investigation go? 22:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineapple4321 (talk • contribs)

Why is the See also section linking to half of Wikipedia? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's too much and removed it. Director's cut is linked to in the article body, and readers can explore other films with director's cuts that way. Also not seeing the relevance of the comics links either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]