Talk:DC Studios

DC Studios is NOT a rebranded DC Films

THR: “James Gunn and producer Peter Safran have been tapped to lead DC’s film, TV and animation efforts as co-chairs and co-CEOs of DC Studios, a newly formed division at Warner Bros. that will replace DC Films.” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/dc-movies-james-gunn-peter-safran-to-lead-film-tv-division-1235248438/

Variety: “James Gunn and Peter Safran have been tapped as co-chairmen and co-CEOs of DC Studios, a newly created production entity that will oversee DC properties for Warner Bros. Discovery.” https://variety.com/2022/biz/news/james-gunn-peter-safran-dc-studios-warner-bros-discovery-1235414228/

The Verge: “Warner Bros. Discovery has chosen director James Gunn and producer Peter Safran to lead its recently formed DC Studios division.” https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23423484/james-gunn-peter-safran-dc-studios-ceo-dceu

USA Today: “The studio on Tuesday named Gunn and veteran executive Peter Safran co-chairmen and CEOs of the newly formed DC Studios.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2022/10/25/james-gunn-peter-safran-become-ceos-newly-formed-dc-studios/10601719002/

Warner Bros. Discovery: “Peter Safran is Co-Chairman & Co-Chief Executive Officer of DC Studios, a newly formed division of Warner Bros. Discovery” https://www.wbd.com/leadership/peter-safran

James Gunn: “As the new (& first ever) CEOs of DC Studios, Peter & I think it’s important we acknowledge you, the fans” https://x.com/jamesgunn/status/1589336402873188354

”When Peter and I formed DC Studios we immediately knew what logo we wanted to use.” https://x.com/jamesgunn/status/1816954985760100536

“Last night Peter & I went to the #Penguin premiere, the first DC Studios production.” https://x.com/jamesgunn/status/1836448114950946935

This whole page needs to be split into two and rewritten. DC Films was a separate, now defunct, division, which was replaced with a new studio. 90% of the contents of this page are irrelevant to DC Studios. The production library of this new studio began this week with The Penguin and Super/Man. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

DC Studios succeeded DC Films and took over its operations and production. The history of DC Films directly affected what became DC Studios, so that is why they share an article. A split of these closely connected articles is not warranted at this time because there is not an excessive amount of detail. Also, rebrands come with different leaders and corporate structures, not always just in name alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Even thought James Gunn confirmed it is its own seperate entity entirely in this post? ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DC Studios was formed as the successor to DC Films and it was reorganized differently from that prior entity. Yes, it is a different entity, but it is still a successor to what was DC Films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad you agree! We should mention it's a successor in the new article. Thanks for sharing! ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2024

DC Studios → DC Films – We should revert this page back to DC Films.

• The three 2024 projects, such as Super/Man, The Penguin, and Creature Commandos (along with any 2025 projects movie forwards), will leave this article. As confirmed by CEO James Gunn, in this post on Threads, DC Studios is its OWN entity separate from DC Films. The Super/Man documentary was the first movie to be released by the studio, and The Penguin was the first show released by the studio. As he confirmed on this post here, the Joker sequel is NOT a DC Studios film, though some of 2024 projects mentioned earlier are are, as he explained in this post. Given this information, directly from the source, I think this move is in the best interest to make things clear. Even if you disagree with this move propsal, please state if you agree/disagree that the movies Shazam! 2 to Joker 2 should fall under DC Films, as confirmed by the CEO of the company.

Note ... Keep in mind... James Gunn (first party) spelled it out for us. It's its OWN entity. And The Variety (third party) article that mentions DC Studios was a NEWLY CREATED ENTITY. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No. I strongly Oppose this request. What you are requesting is an article split, which you already proposed on here before removing because you didn't agree with my response. Stop trying to game the system. DC Studios is still the successor of DC Films and inherited its prior projects and saw them to completion. DC Films was structured under Warner Bros. Pictures (which mainly oversaw the Joker sequel), while it was replaced with DC Studios and was restructured. These are NOT two completely unrelated companies. What banner recent projects are released under does not mean a split should occur. From a real-world perspective, these share a history and should not be split. Do you have any source aside from your interpretation of Gunn's comments that confirm DC Studios is not at all related to DC Films or that none of the 2023 works were inherited by DC Studios? If not, there is no verifiable rationale to warrant a move or a split. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note that WP:NAMECHANGES applies as DC Studios has routinely been used by reliable sources as the new name for this studio, which sources note replaced/succeeded DC Films. Regardless of what one may believe about the recent titles, this move request is based on a subjective perspective largely from WP:RECENT social media comments from the CEO. As recent sources have shed more light on this situation that spawned this discussion surrounding the recent release of a Joker film, this article has been updated to reflect the new information as it was verified by independent, third-party sources outside of the CEO himself. Reverting to the old name of a former studio to force a page split is not how this process is supposed to work on Wikipedia, and largely all of the support !votes have not addressed article title policies (and appear to be relatively new accounts or new to how this encyclopedia functions, even going as far as ignoring policies) solely based on the word of its CEO. It also appears that there are efforts of WP:Votestacking, though may I remind everyone that WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and these discussions are NOT determined solely by how many !votes there are. Wikipedia is based on WP:Consensus building, and it appears there is no consensus in sight for this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A WP:Consensus is not built through a unanimous decision. Third-party articles dating back to 2023, like the first paragraph from this one here, have noted the studio being separate from Warner, but Warner continuing to release its slate of movies. Sites, such as The-Numbers (as you have mentioned yourself) have also used "DC Films" on these 2023 movies onwards from its release (as verified through the WayBackMachine) to today. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Per that source and the others in the article, DC Studios is separate from Warner Bros. Pictures (where it was part of as DC Films), but that does not support the notion that DC Studios and DC Films are "separate entities", which Gunn has not said directly and no one in this discussion has cited a direct source or quote for. Also, the post you cited above, Gunn makes no mention of a separate entity, either. These arguments are riddled with WP:SYNTH and a gross misunderstanding and mischaracterization of what the sources have contextualized. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Hollywood Reporter article for you, where they specially state that Gunn and Safran "formed" DC Studios. There's a reason Man of Steel and BvS are not on this article either. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they formed DC Studios as a replacement and successor to DC Films. None of these sources dispute that, even the trades from the Oct. 2022 announcements support this. Also, MoS and BvS are not listed because those were made BEFORE DC Films even existed, as DC Films was made due to the poor reception of BvS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And DC Studios was made due to the poor reception of the whole 2017–present era. Get it know? ScottSullivan01 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And? You still have not provided a source that supports the notion of two unrelated companies existing in the way you have spun it. Gunn never said they were "separate entities" as you have repeatedly claimed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Never? That's interesting. Please clarify what he said here for me then. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have explained, Gunn is referring in that comment to how DC Studios is separate from Warner Bros. Pictures. If we took what he said at face value, that would imply DC Studios is not in Warner Bros. at all, which is not true as it was restructured from DC Films being under WBP to being under DC Studios. DC Films had its own history under the Pictures unit before it was replaced, though they have a shared history. This is also the first time you have actually cited that comment in this whole discussion, but it still does not support the notion that DC Studios does not have its roots in what DC Films was, nor does it dispute the fact, which is sourced in the article, that DC Studios replaced DC Films and that Gunn and Safran were hired to replace Hamada. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While DC Studios is the 'successor', it's important to note these are two SEPARATE entities, as stated by James Gunn himself. Homeofdcu (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For transparency, I am noting that the nom apparently made a WP:Canvassing attempt at Homeofdcu's talk page to sway their support in their favor, as evidenced here. This whole discussion is riddled with a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and a misuse of procedure. I would not be surprised if this ended with no consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if we broke every single one of Wikipedia's policies, you'd eventually have to come to terms with the fact you need to separate the two articles. Sure, there may be a better way of actually making that change and not violating policy, but this is just Wikipedia being sorely out-of-date right now, and a change will need to be made whether it's tomorrow or in a year. Brayden8881 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I've personally broken any rule during this discussion. I'm just saying how you're not gonna be able to change the facts of this debate even if rules and policies get broken, as Wikipedia is supposed to be a site that has unbiased and up-to-date information. Brayden8881 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottSullivan01: Per WP:RMCOMMENT, as the nominator, you do not and should not add "Support" to your own proposal, as it is already given that you support your own idea. Please remove that as it is an improper use of this process (which this whole request is, nonetheless). Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group have been notified of this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Trailblazer, this move request is inappropriate. You need consensus that there is no relationship between the two companies, and if that is the case then the article would be split. But renaming this to the old name makes no sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to share my opinion on this matter. DC Studios is indeed a new division under WB Entertainment, a production studio. Logically, they were bound to inherit all DC Films projects, but DC Studios goes beyond that. It is now a studio responsible not only for theatrical releases but also for animation, television, and video games. Therefore, they have also inherited all animated projects, but that doesn't mean every project should be listed under the DC Studios article just because they are now under its supervision. As James Gunn himself has stated, not all of these projects are DC Studios productions.

The ideal solution would be to create a separate article for DC Studios and only include the projects the studio itself is working on. There are also inconsistencies in the current article, such as the exclusion of series like Gotham Knights (2023), Superman & Lois, Suicide Squad Isekai, and video games released after the establishment of DC Studios.

If the goal is to group all existing DC audiovisual material under DC Studios, then everything should be included, not just select projects. However, the correct approach is to leave the DC Films article as it was, with its films (and they didn’t even manage all of them, such as The Kitchen in 2019), and create a new article for DC Studios featuring ONLY the productions the studio has produced or acquired and released under the DC Studios label, such as Super/Man, Superman (2025), Creature Commandos, or The Penguin. Drapionsito (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Drapionsito. It is clear they are two separate entities, as mentioned by James Gunn himself. For anyone who clicks on the page too, they are bombarded with the entire history of a completely different entity before they can see anything about the newly formed DC Studios, which is probably why they're going to the article. Ideally, we should only include DC Studios projects that contain its logo or its name in the credits. Brayden8881 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources state. Per sources in the article, DC Studios was formed to replace DC Films, and it did inherit some of DC Films' productions. The studio was restructured as DC Studios. That cannot be ignored. This whole move request is very revisionist and these suggestions are not backed by any reliable sources to verify the claims. Everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. Content like Gotham Knights has not been said to be a DC Studios production, while others have been. Productions started under DC Films, ie the Joker sequel, should still be included in this article as that is where they started, even if DC Films' replacement is not involved in it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no continuity between DC Films and DC Studios; it is an entirely new and separate division created within WB Entertainment, which handles something that has never been done before at the company: overseeing all of DC's audiovisual branches, outside of the comics. As I’ve already told you, by pure logic, they inherit all of DC Films' projects, as well as DC’s animation and video games, but these are not projects of the studio. And the sources that Wikipedia requires have already been provided, in the words of James Gunn, the head of the studio. Drapionsito (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

DC Studios needs to have its own article because it is a newly created division. It’s referred to as the successor to DC Films because that division, under Warner Bros. Pictures, ceased to exist with the birth of DC Studios, a fully-fledged and totally independent production studio under Warner Bros. Entertainment. It now takes on not only films but also DC's animation, television, and video games. Cartoon Network Studios has its own article because it split from Hanna-Barbera, so why can’t DC Studios, which is a completely new entity? I've provided plenty of reasons for this change. Even James Gunn, the head of DC Studios, has said countless times that DC Studios is something new and entirely separate from what DC Films was. Drapionsito (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite ridiculous to me that you say Wikipedia needs sources for everything, we provide them, and despite the fact that they are words from the head of DC Studios himself, you don't take them into account. Yet, at the same time, you allow the article to be filled with productions that the studio has nothing to do with, like Batman Ninja 2 (from WB Japan) or Batman Azteca (from Max Mexico). DC Studios can give notes for everything, but only productions from the studio itself should be included, in its own article, because it is an independent entity. Drapionsito (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Drapionsito is correct. This is not just a name change. This is a separate entity which was created after DC Films disbanded. The two are even structurally different, one being its own studio ran by co-CEOs under WBD, and the other being ran directly by WB executives. Homeofdcu (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The continuity of the company from DC Films to DC Studios is consistent. Yes the status of the company changed, but it's not entirely new and it would be confusing to readers to have two separate articles with similar names. Spanneraol (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is no continuity between DC Films and DC Studios; it is an entirely new and separate division created within WB Entertainment, which handles something that has never been done before at the company: overseeing all of DC's audiovisual branches, outside of the comics. As I’ve already told you, by pure logic, they inherit all of DC Films' projects, as well as DC’s animation and video games, but these are not projects of the studio. And the sources that Wikipedia requires have already been provided, in the words of James Gunn, the head of the studio. Drapionsito (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Example of this on Wikipedia. Cartoon Network Studios became its own studio separate from Hanna-Barbera in 2000, and in their Wikipedia article they do not count series produced at Hanna-Barbera, that is in the Hanna-Barbera article, they only count CNS productions since the formation of the studio Drapionsito (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is simply untrue. It was elevated to it's own division of WB... but kept the continuity of the projects that had been in the works. Again, it would create confusion to have two articles with similar titles. There is no need for that.. Spanneraol (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Opposition. It's not untrue at all. I think you're interpreting it as a name change, but that's not the case. DC Studios is a new division, A SEPARATE ENTITY from any WB division, that reports directly to the CEO of WBD, David Zaslav. It is responsible for managing live-action content (movies and series), animation, and DC video games. The studio GIVES NOTES on all the projects that were in development before, but only those that were greenlit and started production under its leadership, with DC Studios fully involved, belong to DC Studios. Teen Titans Go! is not a DC Studios production, just to give you an example, and yet it's listed in the article, which is a mistake. See? You're getting confused with these things too, even though it's already been fully explained. Drapionsito (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not confused.. I know exactly what happened here. It's still the entity overseeing DC Productions.. It was just moved from a sub label of WB to a separate label of it's own under Zaslav and renamed and Hamada was replaced by Gunn and Safron. There is still continuity from one to the other. Spanneraol (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. For some reason, a large silent majority are expressing their abject rejection of the corporate history because Gunn made some comments saying DC Studios only starts with their projects, and are interpreting that and other sources to suit their own perception, a clear definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - DC Films and DC Studios are separate entities with separate purviews that are each notable enough for their own articles. Mushing them together gives undue weight to their connection. No reliable sources would ever claim that DC Studios was founded in 2016 by Geoff Johns and Jon Berg. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox specifically specifies that DC Films was founded in 2016 and that DC Studios was formed in 2022. No one is saying DC Studios was formed in 2016 here, just that DC Studios replaced (aka succeeded) DC Films, which is accurate and reliably sourced in the article and infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The lede says “The studio was initially formed in May 2016 as DC Films and was led by comic book writer and producer Geoff Johns and producer Jon Berg”, so no, the page does in fact say that the studio was formed in 2016, which is inaccurate and unsourced. The infobox also unequivocally claims that Geoff Johns and Jon Berg are the founders of DC Studios. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if a split is justified, however, the presentation of DC Studios projects definitely needs to be changed. There is a major distinction between projects that may technically have DC Studios oversight (Shazam 2 through Joker 2) with projects that are directly attributed to DC Studios (The Penguin, Super/Man, etc), and the current format does not make this clear. Prefall 17:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I have been working on devising a different structured approach to the productions list. I think adding a note along the lines of "Initially produced by DC Films and released under DC Studios" for Shazam! 2 to Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom}} and then another note for Joker 2 saying "Initially produced by DC Films and Warner Bros. Pictures; Not a DC Studios film" could suffice, though there needs to be clarity explaining that the likes of Super/Man and The Penguin were released under the DC Studios banner (ie with Gunn and Safran's involvement, the new logo, etc.) while others were inherited (Shazam! 2) and some ultimately had little to no involvement from the new brass ala Joker 2. Gunn's comments are good to help support this approach and these distinctions, though it needs to be conveyed in a simple manner as not to confuse readers or to over-bloat the table. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Joker 2 began production after DC Films was shut down. It doesn’t belong on this page at all. Unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise, it should be removed entirely. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It needs to have its own article for DC Studios because DC Studios is not DC Films; it’s a completely new studio created from scratch. That’s what people need to understand. Does it inherit projects from DC Films? Yes. It also inherits projects from DC Animation, but that doesn’t make it the successor of anything. It replaces DC Films because DC Films ceased to exist the moment DC Studios was created, nothing more. But they are not the same, and the same article for DC Films should not be used for DC Studios, and that’s a fact. Drapionsito (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the correct response. Movies from the Shazam! sequel to the Joker sequel also need the "DC Studios" banner removed from their respective articles, but User:Trailblazer101 continues to revert my edits. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Shazam! 2, Aquaman 2, The Flash, and Blue Beetle are still credited to DC studios on websites such as Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. See their respective articles for those citations. Those should NOT be removed. One film, the Joker sequel, not being produced or released by DC Studios is not evidence to support an entire split of this article in a proposal disguised as a move request. You have not provided independent third-party sources to dispute the DC Studios credit of those films aside from Joker. Per my latest comment in this long-winded thread at the bottom, I already explained how this article ought to address the different credits and situations. You were the one repeatedly reinserting unsourced or incorrectly sourced information after it was contested, which can be disruptive especially when it is under discussion and has been contested before. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo pulls from IMDb, which is user-edited just like Wikipedia with an even less rigorous approval process. IMDb (and its other companies) are not reliable sources. In another post not shared here yet, Gunn confirmed The Penguin was the FIRST DC Studios production. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

BOM is a reliable source, unlike IMDb, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office. I have noted Gunn's comments. Gunn is referring to how he and Safran were directly involved in the production of The Penguin via DC Studios, unlike Joker 2 and the 2023 titles. Trailblazer101 (talk) Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have checked The Numbers and Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo does not mention "DC Studios" and The Numbers uses the "DC Films" label as seen here on the Shazam! sequel, on the Aquaman sequel, The Flash movie, and the Blue Beetle movie. So your original post isn't even factually correct. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, they had originally used that name when I added the cites months ago, so I think those could also be changed. As for Aquaman, this THR article uses "DC Studios", and DC Studios is specifically cited in many citations in those articles as being involved in the production process since it was formed in 2022. Again, none of this confirms DC Studios is completely separate from DC Films, as it succeeded it. DC Studios being a new division does not mean it is not the successor of DC Films, and you have still not provided any sources to verify your claims of this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That article was written in 2023 when there was still a lot of confusion surrounding the new studio. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It is still a reliable source. You can't just ignore it because you disagree with the contents. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you're not getting it. I've already mentioned several times that DC Studios inherits the task of GIVING NOTES on previous DC products, whether it's the productions from what was DC Films, DC TV/WB TV series, or WB Games' licensed DC video games, because DC Studios, THE NEW ENTITY created to oversee all DC branches outside of comics, is responsible for that. Therefore, all DC movies from 2023 and 2024 are from WARNER BROS. PICTURES, the TV series on CW like Superman & Lois or Gotham Knights, or The Sandman on Netflix, are from WARNER BROS. TELEVISION. The same goes for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League from WARNER BROS. GAMES. According to the current logic of the article used for DC Studios, all of this would have to be included, but that’s not the case. Only what is PRODUCED by DC STUDIOS should be included, not what is produced by other divisions, where the most DC Studios has done is GIVE NOTES. Now, having said this, is it that hard for you to accept that DC STUDIOS is its own independent entity that makes its own productions, whether they be movies, animations, TV series, or video games? You're completely refusing, despite me giving you sources for this.

Now, really, you CANNOT use sources like Box Office Mojo or IMDb because the only way to know if something is from DC Studios is if a studio executive is CREDITED in the production, in any capacity, or if the studio itself is credited. THE PENGUIN is the first production by DC Studios, and Super/Man is the first one to be released under the studio's label, although it was an acquisition. Box Office Mojo lists DC Studios because they think that's the case, but I've given you plenty of well-reasoned arguments and SOURCES that show otherwise. You can't say Teen Titans Go! is a DC Studios production because it isn't—that's not how it works. A production from the studio will bear the studio's logo—THAT is the only truth.

However, you CAN trust what articles from sites like The Hollywood Reporter say because they get FIRST-HAND information from DC Studios to write their pieces. In all of them, they state that it's a newly created division that replaces DC Films for the simple reason that DC FILMS DIED after the birth of DC Studios. It's exactly the same as when HBO Max launched and HBO Now was shut down—it wasn’t a name change, it was a REPLACEMENT, and thus it has its own Wikipedia article. This differs from the change from HBO Max to Max, which was a name change, so they use the same article. Drapionsito (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that TB101 continues to cite The-Numbers, despite that site currently using "DC Films" (and always using "DC Films" if you check the WayBackMachine). ScottSullivan01 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know who will be responsible for deciding if this happens or not, but I hope they read this.

I'm going to list the reasons why I believe DC Studios should have its own article on Wikipedia.

1. DC Studios is not the successor of DC Films. DC Films died the moment Warner Bros. Discovery decided to create DC Studios, a completely new studio dedicated to managing all branches of DC, except for comics, as that falls under DC Comics. Moreover, DC Films wasn’t even a studio in the traditional sense; it was more of a name for a division that managed the DCEU and some other DC movies, but not all of them, as I already mentioned. For instance, Walter Hamada had absolutely nothing to do with The Kitchen, a DC Vertigo movie that was distributed by WB Pictures in 2019.

2. DC Studios, being a separate entity that manages all branches of DC, has indeed inherited projects initially handled by DC Films, such as Shazam 2, Aquaman 2, and Blue Beetle. However, these are not films produced by the studio since they were not made under DC Studios. The only thing the studio did was provide notes; WB Pictures handled everything, including Joker 2. DC Studios also inherited all of DC Animation's projects, and that doesn't make Teen Titans Go! a DC Studios production, does it?

3. Only productions made (or acquired, in the case of the Super/Man documentary) by DC Studios should be included, essentially those that bear the studio’s logo, such as The Penguin, Creature Commandos, and Superman (2025). It is entirely incorrect to try to classify all of DC's audiovisual projects under DC Studios when, clearly, DC Studios had nothing to do with them. For example, the Max Latin America film Batman Azteca or the anime film Batman Ninja, produced by WB Japan. DC Studios can provide notes for all projects, but we should only classify what is produced by the studio itself, which includes the projects I’ve already mentioned.

4. James Gunn himself has said this, and he is the most valid source possible for Wikipedia, as he is the head of the studio. DC Films should have its own article with the films managed by that division, and DC Studios should have its own article as an independent entity. I already provided the example of Cartoon Network Studios, which was born as a division of Hanna-Barbera and became independent in 2000; it has its own article, and only productions made under Cartoon Network Studios are included, not those of Hanna-Barbera. And it makes perfect sense! The same should apply to DC Studios.

We must not be inconsistent. DC Studios is a separate entity, and therefore, it needs its own article on Wikipedia, with its own executives, productions, and more. There is no connection between DC Films and DC Studios beyond the latter replacing DC Films because, obviously, the former ceases to exist. It's like when HBO Max replaced HBO Now (or HBO Go in Latin America / HBO Europe in Europe). The same article was not used, unlike when Max came as a replacement for HBO Max, because that IS a name change, with DC Studios it is not, it is a separate entity. Drapionsito (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

While I broadly agree with your point, it’s important to note that James Gunn is absolutely not the “most valid source for Wikipedia”. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that secondary sources are always preferred and that “Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves”. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. Of course the CEO of a relatively new studio would want to not be associated with the prior regime's works, especially when they haven't performed or been received well. Gunn's word is not a gospel or definitive fact for all information, and Wikipedia should rely on third-party independent sources to verify all information added to the encyclopedia. Given none of the participants in this move request who support it have actually provided such references to verify their claims, it makes it difficult to find any non-biased validity to them (and for this request as a whole). Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion is born from my list of third-party independent sources that all support the idea that DC Studios and DC Films are separate entities. You personally responded to it twice. 184.144.61.138 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well that, there are several third party sources that serve to argue all of this. That said, who is in charge of deciding whether or not to make the change? Drapionsito (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Per my comments at that discussion, those sources do not confirm that DC Studios is completely unrelated to DC Films. DC Studios is a successor to DC Films, but is structured differently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's just reminds everyone here that User:Trailblazer101 was very against splitting DCEU and DCU too. He continues to believe that he knows more than the CEO of the company who is spelling it out for us. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What?! Well, that doesn't sound very WP:CIVIL. I urge you to please WP:Assume good faith. My prior edits bear no meaning in this discussion, and the DCEU and DCU are different universes. I have not said I know more than Gunn, just that we need independent, third-party reliable sources and not to solely rely on one individual who has a stake to claim in relation to this company. That is how this encyclopedia works. If you continue to make these types of comments, that would detract from focusing on the content, not the editor. All I am saying is to provide a reliable source other than Gunn that explicitly says DC Studios is not a successor to DC Films. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Literally all of these sources mention that it is a newly created division dedicated to managing all branches of DC (movies, animation, television and video games). It is the successor of DC Films for the only reason I already explained, one dies and another is born, it is not a name change therefore DC Studios does not have to be in the same article as DC Films, which is a thing that STOPPED EXISTING. Just like HBO Now after the launch of HBO Max, or Cartoon Network Studios after the death of Hanna-Barbera. Drapionsito (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. User:Trailblazer101 seems hellbent of being actively antagonistic for no reason. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not been acting as an "antagonist"? These comments of yours are really unconstructive and reaping of WP:Personal attacks, which are not allowed. Please, focus on the content at hand and stop trying to label editors. This is not the place for that kind of behavior, and I am not going to tolerate it or respond to such comments. I have been working at explaining my reasoning to you and others and have asked for sources that disprove the studios' relation, which have not been sufficiently provided without any WP:SYNTH analysis applied. I don't feel a need to continue participating in this discussion if you cannot contribute in a civil or constructive manner, though it appears you have a clear bias against me for whatever reason. This whole move request has blown way out of proportion and these long-winded comments really have WP:BLUDGEONED the consensus building process. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks. This is my last response in this thread. You accused ME of being uncivil. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Companies, WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Television/American television task force, WikiProject Film/Filmmaking task force, and WikiProject Comics have been notified of this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the Hanna-Barbera comparison.. that company had a long history as an independent company and notability on it's own. I don't believe "DC Films", which only existed as an entity for a short period of time, has the independent notability to have it's own article outside of "DC Studios" which has also just existed for a short period.Spanneraol (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're proposing this article should have never existed? ScottSullivan01 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it should remain as part of this article so that the whole history of DC as a film production unit can remain together... I don't see the need for separating them.. "DC Films" otherwise should redirect to the List of films based on DC Comics publications article. Spanneraol (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"DC Films" should remain as a redirect to this article as it is a formal name. There is already "DC films" which sufficiently covers that, plus a hatnote at the top of this article. DC Films and DC Studios have a shared history as the production arm of Warners' DC-based works, regardless of how one interprets Gunn's comments. DC Studios is a new brand, but the core structure of a DC film studio has its roots in DC Films. Gunn and Safran were hired to replace DC Films president Walter Hamada. Plus, if they were split, the articles would have overlapping details explaining their relation to one another. I'm not even sure why this revisionist approach has become so prevalent (especially to relatively new editors) just because of a social media comment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note / Additional third-party source: Keep in mind this third-party article from 2023 mentioning DC Studios being a separate entity. The article also mentions the reamining films (at the time) being released from Warner Discovery, not DC Studios. The article mentions, "Previously led by Walter Hamada, DC Films was a smaller division that mainly focused on Warner Bros.'s movies based on the comic book brand. During the original DCEU era, DC Films only existed within Warner Bros. Pictures Group. DC Studios, with Gunn and Safran, will report directly to Zaslav. However, the two CEOs are staying on the same level as Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy, who are the new heads of Warner Bros. Pictures Group." ScottSullivan01 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  That article is noting what has already been explained by the trades and what is sourced in this article, that DC Films was under Warner Bros. Pictures while DC Studios replaced it and was restructured under Warner Bros. Entertainment with a new approach under Gunn and Safran. This is nothing new and the Screen Rant article does not deconfirm that DC Studios succeeded DC Films. Plus, Screen Rant is a lower tier blog cite when compared to the trades of The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline. Gunn did not say that DC Studios was a separate entity in that source in the way it has been conveyed, saying "DC is separate from Warner Bros as of a couple months ago", as in no longer part of the WB Pictures unit but it is still obviously part of Warner Bros as a whole. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support —— Based on the evidence provided through both first-party and third-party sources in this discussion, it is reasonable to propose renaming the current article to its former title, DC Films. This reflects the historical context and distinguishes it from DC Studios, a newly established entity. To maintain clarity and accuracy, a separate article should be created for DC Studios, ensuring that each entity is represented independently and appropriately in accordance with their distinct timelines and organizational structures. It is only logical to do so. The CEO of the studio (like him or hate him) has confirmed that DC Studios is a newly established entity. This indicates a formal distinction between the two organizations, each with potentially different leadership, mandates, and operational structures. Maintaining separate articles would provide clarity for readers, as it allows for the accurate representation of each entity’s unique history and purpose. This separation aligns with best practices in documenting corporate evolutions, ensuring that the information reflects current realities while preserving the historical context of DC Films. These comment/replies are getting a little silly. MissTaylorW (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support this endeavor for all of the reasons I've stated before as well as what Drapionsito, Homeofdcu and ScottSullivan01 have all said about the fact that DC Films and DC Studios are clearly two separate entities, and for organization efforts as well as accuracy in comments made by the CEO of the studio. Brayden8881 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• SUPPORT!!!! long time reader, 1st time commentor! i wanted to say we should fix it because thats what james gun said to do and i believe him and the sources say so to!TheAquaman1 (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support There should be a clear distinction between DC Films and DC Studios, two separate entities, so two separate articles, as distinguished by co-CEO James Gunn on Threads. The Penguin and Super/Man are the first DC Studios projects, first and foremost. The current state can imply to readers that they are the same, just with a name change. 204.154.81.253 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• SUPPORT I've already made my case previously, but I want to make it clear I support the motion. Homeofdcu (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless how James Gunn himself commented about it, we must take a note that DC Studios had a roots from DC Films. So, both firms are same identity, albeit with name change. DC Films was founded in 2016 while DC Studios was founded in 2022 as successor of DC Films. Anyone can deny the existence of DC Films as predecessor of DC Studios, but doesn't change the fact that both companies (according to revisionist approach is a separate entity) are single entity that shared history each other. Source from Brand Petch and Comic Book already mentioned that. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The listing of DC Studios projects going forward

Currently, every DC project that gets released is being attributed to DC Studios and is listed in this article. This is now an issue because, according to Gunn, The Penguin is the first DC Studios production, yet this article has three other series preceding it. It can no longer be assumed that every DC project will be a DC Studios production just because they have oversight.

A good rule of thumb would be to only list projects where the DC Studios logo is present, or where reliable sources directly tie the project to DC Studios. I believe this criteria would more accurately limit the current listings to The Penguin, Super/Man, Creature Commandos, Peacemaker season two, and the live-action films. Prefall 05:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)