Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Batman (1989 film)

• Comments, suggestions, etc. from Steve ^{T • C} A good, interesting article. I've read it before, but there have been significant changes since the last time. I've split this review into two sections. The first concerns issues that probably need sorting before the article can reach A-class. The second section contains suggestions that would almost certainly be brought up during any future featured article candidacy. I know this list looks long, but really, most of these are minor fixes that can be dealt with easily enough:

*'A'-class issues:

• • Infobox:
    • Per WP:FLAG, there's probably no need for the flag image. I'd also be tempted to delink United States, an article that wouldn't really add to a reader's understanding of the topic.
  • Lead:
    • Per WP:PIPE, the link to the character article in the first line should encompass "of the same name" rather than just the last two words.
    • The statement "The film is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker"" makes it sound as if the whole series deals with Batman v. Joker. Suggestion: "The film, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker", is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series."
    • Should it be "Warner Bros." throughout, rather than "Warner Brothers"?
    • The italics are a bit fudged in the third paragraph.
    • Remove the film series link from the fourth paragraph. It's already linked in the first.
    • Is the "breach of contract" situation a prominent enough incident for the lead?
  • "Plot" section:
    • Overlinking throughout. See "vigilante", "corrupted", "cathedral" and "bell tower" for examples. All common enough terms that they don't need definitions and explanations. Check for others.
    • The first line ("With a 200th anniversary celebration approaching...") doesn't mention what it's an anniversary of.
    • The mention of Joker's "laughing sound machine" seems trivial and the summary works without it.
  • "Cast" section:
    • This seems like a mere list fleshed out solely with plot information. Some prefer the real world casting information to be included in this section. Or consider rolling this section into the "Casting" subsection of "Development".
    • Some overlinking ("hoax", "photo shoots", etc.).
  • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
    • "Producers Michael Uslan, a former comic book writer and Benjamin Melniker purchased the film rights..." Who is the "former comic book writer" referring to? While it's not Uslan, some readers might be fooled into thinking that it is, and that you've simply missed a comma.
    • Remove or fix the campy (style) redlink.
    • "Columbia Pictures and United Artists turned down the offer." What offer? The pitch? If so, clarify by moving the sentence to accompany the one about the pitch, or recast the sentence to say something like "Columbia Pictures and United Artists were among those to turn down the film."
    • "Mankiewicz took high inspiration..." High inspiration? Is this any different to the regular kind of inspiration?
    • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by.
  • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
    • In the third paragraph, it's unclear whether or not the changing of Silver and Thorne to Vale and Grissom was Hamm's idea, as the sentence says he "believed" (i.e. he wasn't sure, but thought it likely) the decision was made because they weren't well known enough.
    • "Bob Kane was hired as creative consultant. He approved of the cast, production design and the script." Does that mean he had actual approval rights (unlikely), or that he "liked" them and said as much?
    • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by (e.g. "film treatment", "campy", The Dark Knight Returns).
  • "Development" section, "Casting" subsection:
    • Overlinking throughout (e.g. "movie star", and again with the campy! :p).
    • The non-free image used to identify Keaton as Batman has a really weak rationale. At least consider moving it to the appropriate part of the "Design" section, so it has some defence should its deletion ever be proposed.
    • "Dick Grayson appeared in the shooting script but was deleted as the filmmakers felt he was irrelevant to the plot." Slight contradiction; wasn't he already removed from the film by Englehart at the treatment stage? Clarify.
  • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
    • I'll stop mentioning the overlinking now. Take it as read that it needs looking at throughout the article. :)
    • "The filmmakers used matte paintings and actual 40-foot (12 m) tall buildings to help utilize the look." No need for that "actual", and I'm not sure you mean "utilize" there. What are you trying to say exactly?
    • By "setpiece" do you mean "set"? They're different terms.
    • "Jon Peters had an idea for possibly enthusing a Nike promotion." While in a technical sense, enthusing could be used here, it doesn't work due to the ambiguity it brings. Consider replacing with a like term.
  • "Development" section, "Music" subsection:
    • Fudged wikilink in second sentence. Not that it's needed, as it's yet another link to The Dark Knight Returns. :)
    • "...compilations of Elfman's opening credits were used in the title sequence for Batman: The Animated Series" Needs to be made clear that you mean Elfman's opening credits music.
  • "Reception" section:
    • I'm not too wild on the section title, which doesn't seem to cover the fact that the section contains information on marketing etc. as well as the box office and critics' views.
    • "foreign countries" would be better as "internationally", as this gears the sentence towards a less US-centric readership.
    • "Based on 49 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of reviewers enjoyed the film, with the consensus of "an eerie, haunting spectacle, Batman succeeds as entertainment, but as an addition to the character's legacy, it rings disappointingly hollow." The sentence doesn't work as written, with the segue between the prose and quote especially cumbersome. Consider paraphrasing the quote.
    • Actually, the use of Rotten Tomatoes is inappropriate here. If you notice, the reviews it lists are all dated from throughout the last twenty years, rather than from around the period of the film's release. That means it's not a good indicator as to Batman's original critical reaction. Far better to use this as a retrospective analysis, seeing if you can find another cite to summarise the critical consensus.
  • "Legacy" section:
    • "Uslan and Melniker consoled themselves with their executive producing fees of $300,000 apiece." This seems like a pretty snarky comment. More neutral wording could be used.
• Potential future FAC issues:
  • Lead:
    • "Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under various strict circumstances that..." The sentence works fine without the "various". Suggest replacing "circumstances" with a slightly less ambiguous term such as "conditions" or better.
    • "...deleting the character Dick Grayson." A better word than "deleting" here would be "removing", maybe "eliminating" or "discarding".
  • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
    • "Disappearing" might be better replaced with "waning" or similar, as the former suggests the character's popularity was on its way to extinction entirely (unlikely).
    • "Prevailing conception of the character..." "Perception" might be better here, to avoid ambiguity caused by several possible interpretations of "conception".
    • "Uslan, already disappointed, wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to "give people in Hollywood some idea of just what the hell I was talking about! It really was about ten years before The Dark Knight Returns. It was that [dark] approach to it."" The mix of prose and quote is cumbersome there, and doesn't work after the first sentence. Instead of giving the entire quote, it might be better to paraphrase it thus: "A disappointed Uslan then wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to give the film industry a better idea of his vision for the film. Uslan later compared its dark tone to that of The Dark Knight Returns, which his script pre-dated by ten years."
    • "Melniker and Uslan were promised 40% of Peters and Guber's box office profits, and felt it was best to pattern the film's development similar to Superman (1978)." The two statements aren't really related, so a new sentence rather than a comma would be more appropriate. The second part of the sentence is a little clumsy ("pattern the film's development similar to Superman"). Maybe try "pattern the film's development after that of Superman (1978)".
    • "The project was publicly announced in late 1981 to be budgeted at $15 million with still no movie studio involved." Makes it sound as if the lack of a movie studio was part of the announcement. Consider splitting the sentence for clarity ("Though no movie studios were yet involved, in late 1981 the project was publicly announced with a budget of $15 million."
    • "...focusing on Batman and Dick Grayson's origins with the Joker and Rupert Thorne as villains..." Comma after origins to remove ambiguity.
    • "...nine different writers." Redundant "different".
    • "...the comic book 'Strange Apparitions." Refer to it as a comic book the first time it's mentioned, leave it out for subsequent mentions.
  • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
    • It's not strictly necessary, but I think the long quote from Uslan at the beginning would be better if it were broken up and paraphrased in a similar manner to the example I give above.
    • "However" is usually redundant. The same applies at the start of the fourth paragraph. Check for more.
    • "Englehart deleted the Penguin and Dick Grayson." Again, "removed", "eliminated" or similar would be better here.
  • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
    • Long quote from Ringwood that might be better off paraphrased, placed in a quote box, or used as the caption with the image of Keaton as Batman.
  • "Reception" section:
    • The reviews don't really go into a lot of detail for the most part; they're more a collection of soundbites than specific, targeted criticisms. I think this section would need the most expansion were the article to go to FAC.
    • Is there any deeper analysis of the film's themes available? Again, maybe it's not strictly necessary for a popcorn flick, but I remember when I first saw it reading a hell of a lot about Batman and Joker, Batman's psyche etc. I'm positive this would come up during FAC.
  • "Legacy" section:
    • Is there anything else available on the film's legacy as the film that pretty much heralded the arrival of the modern superhero film?
  • As I've commented above, the whole article needs some of the overlinked words and phrases looking at. There's no need to link the first instance of every actor, producer, writer or comic book in each section, for example.
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • http://www.superherohype.com
    • http://www.snarkygossip.com
    • http://www.dailyscript.com
    • http://www.batmanytb.com
    • http://www.batman-on-film.com
    • http://www.scifiscripts.com
    • Just to clarify, I'm not bringing these up because I'm overly pedantic. I know most of these are "reliable" (i.e. I personally trust the information), but I also know that you'll have to rightly prove that should the article ever go to FAC.
  • See WP:NBSP for where non-breaking spaces should be implemented (e.g. $48 million, October 20).
• That seems to be it for now. Let me know if you have any questions; naturally, I'll keep the review watchlisted. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that review. I have finished addressing your important comments for the A-class suggestions. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]