Template talk:DC Animated Universe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Continuity

I think there's an inherent problem with this template only adhering to one continuity in various formats, rather than "DC animation" as a whole. I can understand the desire for a "Timmverse" footer, but given the "Brainiac Attacks" debate it does seem quite exclusionary. WesleyDodds 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this template exists to help people figure out the continuity. Doczilla 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but is that really necessary or encyclopedic? WesleyDodds 08:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, yes. There are alot of DC animation properties, but only some of them adhere to the DCAU "timmverse" continuity. This template only goes on pages that adhere to said continuity, so it won't be an issue on pages related to things outside of DCAU-canon. --Venomaru 2.0 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sill, i don't think that's the proper use of the template. For one, this template is called "DC-animation" when it only focuses on a small segement of DC cartoons. The DCAU shows could be grouped into a subsection of a greater "DC animation template", but I don't think the average person would be looking specifically for "Timmverse" cartoons and the template shoudl reflect that. I mean, "Superfriends", the Fleischer Superman cartoons, and The Batman are pretty notable products of DC animation. WesleyDodds 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that it should be an all-DC properties template, as that just creates confusion (you have no idea how many times I've had to revert edits due to ignorant people thinking The Batman could ever be in the same continuity as Batman: TAS, as they conflict on every possible level). The DCAU is notable for being one of the only TV continuities of its kind, whereas shows like "Teen Titans" or "The Batman" take place in their own individual continuities. With this template people know what properties belong to the "Timmverse", and that any that are excluded... do not. However, I do agree that the template may need a name change. As DC-animation covers a wide variety of shows. How about... "Template:DCAU"? --Venomaru 2.0 02:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this template is more useful than most. I would never have had reason to know that a couple of those shared the same continuity. Most templates take space that one link to a list could easily take care of. This one reminds people of what goes together, like the boxes that name the previous and next movie in a series of films. Doczilla 03:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Venomaru: Following up on your DCAU suggestion, I went one step further and renamed it Timm_DCAU. Doczilla 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call. That should make it alot more clear for people, as it's a bit more specific. --Venomaru 2.0 04:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Superman: Brainiac Attacks

It seems to me that this is another case of "I don't like it, so it's not part of the continuity" (as was the case with some people and Batman Beyond, Static Shock, and The Zeta project). However, the fact of that matter is that there are quite a few points which suggest it is in-continuity, and actual confirmation:

• The animation style is identical to that of Superman: TAS.

• Most of the voice actors from Superman: TAS reprise their roles.

• Continuity-wise it both references past episodes, and fits nicely into continuity.

• Lex Luthor and Mercy Graves have different VAs. However, this is not the first time a DCAU VA has been replaced. They recast Bane and the Penguin in Mystery of the Batwoman. Superman was recast for Justice League, and the list goes on.

• Brainiac has a different voice and shows a level of emotion. But both in the comics and in DCAU continuity there are several "versions" of Brainiac. Most notably the Brainiac from the future's very own legion of Superheroes, who both showed emotion and had a different voice.

• Lex Luthor acts whacky. Well, that was done so he'd somewhat match his chracterization in the "Superman Returns" film. But lets look at this from a historical standpoint, Lex has never been what one would call... stable. His shift from tyrant, to villain, to supervillain was filled with crazed moments. Does no one remember his obsession with Brainiac in the final season of JLU?

• Duane Capizzi has stated that it wasn't his intent for it to be in-continuity. However, he never once said it was expressly 100% not meant to be either, merely that he didn't go into it with that mindset in place.

• Curt Geda recently stated that the movie was indeed intended to continue the Superman animated series. Which adds final confirmation to the facts that were stated in this very post (See: here).

With that confirmation we can say without a shadow of a doubt that the film is in DCAU canon, and that no matter how an individual feels about the matter, that it's there in black and white, and should not be removed from the article. --Venomaru 2.0 07:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Curt Geda does not confirm continuity in that link. Please provide a quotation, because I just don't see it. Otherwise, the rest is just speculation. Show me where it says it is in-continuity, and not just in the style of, the DCAU. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article itself states it as a continuation of the series "A feature-length continuation of the popular 1996 show, Superman: The Animated Series, Brainiac Attacks sees the man in tights taking on old enemies Lex Luthor and Brainiac, while also wrestling with his desire to disclose his identity to the lovely Miss Lane." But in the interview itself, it's in the subtext. How they wanted to respect the source material of the animated series, and such.Here's the thing though, there's no proof it's not in-continuity.

So what's your story? You read the World's Finest' reviews, and wrote it off? Saw it and hated it? Well you know what... it's not a great film, it's true. Not as bad as they say, but still not great. It's quite cliched, and follows a set formula. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right (outside of official sources) to declare it as non-canon. Because guess what? Duane Capizzi never stated that it was outside of the DCAU continuity. He was very clear when he said he didn't write it with continuity in mind, but not once did he say he wrote it to be outside of canon.

Is the confirmation a bit weak? Perhaps, yes. But it's still the closet thing we've gotten to a statement so far (outside of Duane's extremely vague comments). I made a very solid case for it's continuity, whereas there's no factual evidence that places it outside of said continuity beyond fan-hatred. So Lex Luthor had a different VA, well, then it must be outside of the DCAU! Why, if they were to make a Batman: TAS film with differing voice actors, then they must be out of continuity too! Oh wait, they did that with Batman & Mr.Freeze: SubZero, where Batgirl's VA was replaced. And what else? Oh yes, Penguin, Bane, and Robin were re-cast for Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman. And don't even get me started on all the recast jobs in the actual series'.

Like it or not, the movie has all the signs of DCAU continuity, and no evidence to suggest it isn't. No one questioned Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman's continuity (which was a much better film, but still) when it had recasted VAs, so doing so with this one is just silly. So you don't like Brainiac Attacks, or you heard some negative stuff and wrote it off? Well, this may surprise you, but I didn't care for it either. Just because we didn't like something does not give us the right to deny its proper placement. To finish off, "Show me where it says it is in-continuity", you said. Well how about you show me where it isn't? My defense has evidence to back it up. While all you could possibly have is "I don't like it", or "different VAs!", both of which I have countered.

By the way, sorry if I was overly sarcastic, I'm tired and a bit irritated. --Venomaru 2.0 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't come off as sarcastic - or maybe you do, I stopped reading - but you do come off as a little bombastic. I read the article, including the part that has someone saying that it is not intended to be set in continuity, but I have never seen someone quoted as saying that it's not in continuity. If you can find someone who says it's in continuity, great, I'll support it, but otherwise, we actually have someone saying that it was intended not to be, which is made stronger by the fact that one might assume otherwise. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Venomaru, we get what you're saying. Wikipedia requires sources. Because we have at least one source with a quote that it was not intended to be in continuity despite the style, characters, referenced history, and actors, we're not supposed to say it's within continuity without a source clearly stating otherwise. No one questioned Mystery of the Batwoman because no one in charge of that one ever said it was not meant to be in continuity. That's how Wikipedia works. Too many things that just make sense turn out to be wrong. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to leave room for such things to creep in. All we need is one good source where the people in charge of that movie say it's really in continuity despite their original intentions. Doczilla 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the argument, "Well how about you show me where it isn't?" That doesn't work any more than saying, "Hey, you prove I never met a leprecaun." Doczilla 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I completely understand what you two are saying. And infact, I'd like to apologize for being somewhat abrasive. I've been fighting this not as a wiki issue, but as continuity issue, which is where I was mistaken. And as for being bombastic, well, I actually find that fairly interesting as no one has ever described my typing in that manner. I've never considered my manner of speech to be grandiloquent, but it's nice to know (and for the record, that's not sarcasm, or an underhanded comment, I find it genuinely interesting). But let me ask you this, would the source material itself not count as a source of sorts?

Anyways, as I've said before, I honestly didn't care for the film. I've been arguing this continuity issue on principle. But you also have to understand my point of view on this as well: Everyone expected this to be the next big thing, Superman: TAS's very own "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. To do what that film did for Batman: TAS. And when they found out Brainiac Attacks had more-or-less a paint-by-numbers plotline the outcry was immense. Suddenly every anti-Brainiac Attacks fanboy was looking for a way to exercise it from continuity.

I understand wikipeda is a place for sources, but bear with me for a moment. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, the film sequel to the Mortal Kombat film. It's generally hated by fans for bad acting, a large number of poor recasts, and just not living up to fan expectations. However, despite all of that, it's still canon to that film franchise, no matter how many fans despise it. Or, the Spider-Man comic series, not too long ago Peter Parker was given orgnaic webshooters in the Marvel comic continuity, much like he does in the Spider-Man films. And that doesn't suddenly make all Spider-Man comics non-canon to their own continuity. It's the same situation as Luthor being recasted to resemble his Superman film counterpart. Both changes are designed to make moviegoers feel more familiar with their other-medium counterparts.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm one of the only ones fighting to prove it's place in-continuity. That you fellows are only getting the mass-hatred side of the story, and that it's not a fans prerogative to be able to stricken things from canon at a whim. It's about logic, using your mind rather than your feelings. Once again though, I do understand what wikipedia is about, I'm just explaining the situation at hand (knowing full well it most-likely won't matter). --Venomaru 2.0 13:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Logically, I agree. It's the same continuity. My opinion on that, however, isn't enough for Wikipedia (although it should be, of course). If we link Brainiac Attacks to the continuity without a citation, too many people who once read it wasn't intended to fit into the continuity will repeatedly undo our work. So . . . we just need a source to counter the previous quote. Let's take care of it now so that it will better stand the test of time. Doczilla 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that no matter what is done, it will be undone. If we keep Brainiac Attacks in, people will undo it saying it's not in-continuity. If we leave it out, people will add it saying it is (I've seen both happen many a time). It's really a no win scenario. But definitive confirmation as to if it is (or isn't) would really be a plus. As of now we only have two very vague interviews one leaning towards isn't, and one leaning towards is. At this point we can only really hope for a third interview with clarification. --Venomaru 2.0 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I feel Brainiac Attacks is in DCAU continuity is because it shares so many qualities with the equally awful DTV Mystery of the Batwoman. Same character designs yet with brighter colors, returning voice actors with inexplicable replacements for random characters, and overall juvenile storylines with continuity and tonal problems which preclude either from dovetailing completely into the DCAU. I decided to move Brainiac Attacks back into the DCAU subheading for these reasons. Therefore, to anyone reading this, I would propose a compromise: either leave both S:BA and Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman under the DCAU subheading, or simply remove BOTH into the 'stand-alone films' category. For the purposes of any kind of proof, both teams behind both productions considered their respective video features to tie into established continuity; however, the basis for MotB being included and S:BA being discounted is nonexistant, and therefore, neither can be proven. In fact, the director of S:BA considered his feature to be a continuation of the Superman Animated Series; it seems highly likely that Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman was not discredited only due to a lack of fan backlash, but there is no more sufficient evidence to canonize or de-canonize this feature too. The only proof against Superman: Brainiac Attacks are lone interviews by single members of the DTV staff (such as Curt Geda and Duane Capizzi) giving their OPINIONS as to why the respective features do or do not tie into the DCAU; this is opinion, not fact, and Warner Brothers has not confirmed nor denied either DTV's canonicity in any regard. To conclude, I move that both Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and Superman: Brainiac Attacks should remain under the DCAU heading due to lack of any concrete proof either way beyond fan (and lone creator) opinion. If concensus wishes to move BOTH out of the DCAU heading and into the stand-alone film category, this is an equally satisfying choice which has no validity than their inclusion; but due to the above-mentioned points, the similarities between the two features are such that either both must go or neither can stay. They were both produced independently of their respective series' years after they finished and animated by new teams. -- Spacebot 05:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)