Talk:DC Animated Universe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

DCAU impact on DCU needs amplification/citation

When I encountered it, the article made this huge assertion, without citation:

In addition, the backstory of Mr. Freeze was adapted from his portrayal in Batman: The Animated Series, and the visuals and/or characterization of Green Lantern, Tim Drake, Supergirl, Toyman, Two-Face, Parasite, Metallo, Clayface, and many others have been applied to their comic counterparts.

While I certainly agree with the first phrase about Mr. Freeze, it still needs a citation. But the bit after the comma? I'm not so sure one can be nearly so confident of the characters listed there. In general — and, I suppose, in my opinion — aside from characters which debuted in animation, the DCAU has made very little lasting impact on the DCU. Indeed a lot of what seems at first "novel" about DCAU characterizations in fact has precedence in the DCU.

Take John Stewart and Supergirl. Unless there have been developments in the last year or so, the DCU has never backed down from its assertion that Stewart is an architect, one of the key differences between the DCU Stewart and the DCAU one. And I'm really not sure why Supergirl is included in this bunch. There is nothing in the DCAU Supergirl that had not been featured in the DCU before, save perhaps the notion that she lived on the Kent farm and was bored there. However, this notion derives from some of the initial Conner Kent storylines, and cannot be said to have originated in the DCAU. Visually, Bruce Timm can (kinda) claim the white uniform, although it's merely a combination of the Power Girl uniform with the traditional Supergirl one. And, that's hardly a major thing, as a) it didn't survive the Supergirl run in the DCAU, and b) it was never worn by the "Superman's cousin"-Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) in comics.

Two-Face is a particularly poor example, it seems to me. The one, over-arching thing you can say about the character is that he's subtly redefined in most of his comic stories, making it difficult to firmly establish all but the broadest "fixed" details. But, at least in my reading of the character's development, I see very little of the DCAU character (from visual design to the signature "Big Bad Harve" psyche) in the DCU. LIkewise, Metallo is an oft-changed DCU character that really bears no resemblance to the DCAU character, especially as most currently conceived.

And, c'mon, Tim Drake? You've got to be kidding. The DCAU Tim Drake is almost nothing like the DCU Tim Drake. There's a similar costume, now, but that's about it.

It should be pointed out that the linked character bio articles do not generally make the assertion that the DCAU versions changed the DCU ones (or, as is the case of Clayface, make the assertion in the lead, but then correctly point out later on that actually the DCAU version is just a recombination of elements previously seen in comics). So it's hard to find any supporting material anywhere on Wikipedia at present.

And the thing that's really tricky is that the DCAU effectively closed prior to Infinite Crisis. Thus, when speaking of major characters who did not originate in the DCAU, it's hard to say that any "innovations" of the DCAU versions still apply. The DCAU has become passé, and was rather deliberately closed to allow for comic writers to redefine the universe again. The basic emotional backstory of Mr. Freeze is one of the few, clear examples of the DCAU adding something to a previously-existing DCU legend that really "stuck".

Basically, this whole section either needs to be deleted, or it needs to cite quite specifically, where and what and for what length of time DC artists have taken from the DCAU. And it needs to cite DC artists actively saying "I took this from the DCAU". "Common fanboy wisdom" — unless specifically cited as "the opinion of fans" — isn't helpful to general readers. The sentence in question is absolutely misleading to the average reader of this article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New DC Animated Universe section

Here's a suggestion, why don't you put in a new section called "List of minor DC Animated Universe Characters" it'll cover all the minor characters that appear in the DC Animated Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.70.18 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's called the "DC Animated Universe"?

What is the source that verifies this name? From what I've seen, there isn't one. ArtistScientist (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

After doing some research, I found that IGN itself called it the DC Animated Universe when they reviewed the season 1 DVD set of JLU. It's in the paragraph right above the picture of The Atom in Wonder Woman's cleavage. Seems to me like a good source. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll add that to the article so it is sourced. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Teen Titans (Conclusive Evidence)

In the DVD of Season 1 of STAS commentators state that Teen Titans is in continuity. This is from the creators clearing up any and all ambiguity. Also, though not totally in continuity, the Teen Titans Go! comic book has a Justice League that is visually similar to the one in the DCAU

24.164.136.207 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I'd point out as well that more evidence exists (so dismissing it as long-since settled otherwise isn't accurate). There's an episode of Static Shock where Static is being helped by Batman. In the batcave, Static asks where Robin is? Batman responds that he'll meet him later; Robin's with the Teen Titans right then. Seems pretty conclusive there, too, which is why I added TT back to the in-continuity list, and will continue to do so. (I agree with the above poster that the condition about the animation style matching is pretty subjective--word I'd've used would've been specious--as the styles varied enough from series to series to make any of them suspect on that count, and to those who aren't used to identifying animation studios by character look, even The Batman and LSH could be considered canon on that basis.) --Homyakchik

That Static line could be referring to an unseen DCUA version of the Teen Titans, and therefore cannot be taken as proof that the Teen Titans from the Teen Titans show are in DCAU continuity.Mr. Quibble (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Justice

I came to this page looking to see what other DC animated series' might exist, having just finished Young Justice. I'm sort of puzzled to see Young Justice itself not listed here. Is this an intentional or unintentional omission? --GenkiNeko (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's intentional. The DCAU consists of shows that were all contained within the same ocntinuity which started with Batman: The Animatred Series. The New Batman Adventures is then included due to it only being a revamp (as made evident by it's inclusion in the complete series box set.) Suiperman the Animated Series then becomes included due to the multiple crossovers with TNBA. Justice League becomes included due to it's continuity nods to the prior shows, Justice League Unlimited as well due to it being a follow up. Static Shock, which wasn't initially within continuity, was wedged in by multiple crossovers, including one with Batman Beyond, which was originally thought of as a possible future to the universe, nut then solidified as in continuity by JLU episode "Epilogue" thus bringing The Zeta Project in as it was a spin off from BB and crossed over with it multiple times. Aditionally, Batman the Brave and the Bold episode "Night of the Batmen" featured a cameo at the end of TNBA Batman, and Terry from Batman Beyond. which seems to wedge that episode into the universe as a trip through the multiverse.

Young Justice, while an excellent show, is left unincluded due to the fact that it doesn't occur within this universes continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.224.190 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Batman Superman Movie (1997)

So, I just noticed that The Batman Superman Movie was nowhere to be seen in the "Films" section of the article.......so, I added it. Hope this is ok (I think everyone here know that it is canon).RhettGedies (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding The Batman Superman film. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) could make a Wikipedia page detailing the films release, cover art, actors, ect. Npabebangin (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Future of DCAU

I read on IGN that Bruce Timm was taking a break from supervising the animated movies to revive the DCAU. Just recently Bruce Timm also animated a Batman Beyond short that was in the style of and featured the voice actors from the old show. Additionally I have heard that a lot of recent comics might be set in the DCAU specifically featuring Batman Beyond. Has anyone else seen this stuff? Would it be notable enough for mention in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.167.41 (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In desperate need of sourcing

This article seems to be missing sources to verify the very existence of its subject, along with the DCAU, Timmverse, and Diniverse names. That seems like a serious problem. Can someone add some citations verifying that the DCAU was a thing that existed, and that the various shows were indeed in continuity with each other? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just realized the article has had a note to that effect for over five years. Might be time to consider deletion if the bulk of it is original research… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Vixen (web series)

There's an animated DC series called Vixen. Enigma^msg 22:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's part of the Arrowverse, not the DCAU. Charles Essie (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Green Lantern

I'm sorry but, how can all these people forget Green Lantern: The Animaited Series? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.163.32 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

What is this?

It doesn't exist. No such thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bishop2 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Psycho... Batman tas

That's a pretty good point (a bit ahead of its time though). Is "The Green Lantern: the Animated Series" part of the DCAU? As far as I can see, the Green Lantern adventures may take place before JLAU as Star Sapphires acquired her powers here. I don't see any problem with the continuity except maybe for the "Brightest Day" episodes in the Superman series, were it is a bit confusing (how many Green Lantern are assigned to Earth?), but it's really closer to DCAU "Brainiac Attacks". But did anybody involved in this project (Bruce Timm, Sam Liu) say so? As far as I know, no. So my conclusion is that it may be included in someone DVD collection (you do as you want) but it's not official. And in the end... who cares?Sultan Rahi (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

... but, it's not working with the Manhunters (They're supposed to be destroyed at the end of the Green Lantern animated series). So, no, it can't be part of the DCAU. Sultan Rahi (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The future of the DCAU - Kevin Conroy Reference

I've twice reverted an edit that says "In 2018, Kevin Conroy revealed that the DCAU had been retired because the writers ran out of ideas for stories and believed stopping was best, as they did not want to "compromise on the quality of what they had and start creating kind of silly stories." The article referenced is http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/05/27/kevin-conroy-batman-animted-series-stopped-making/

• The Article is titled "Kevin Conroy Reveals The Real Reason They Stopped Making ‘Batman: The Animated Series’"
• Kevin Conroy doesn't directly talk about the end of the DCAU. From the article:

  “They didn’t stop making the shows because the audience wasn’t there or the actors weren’t there, they stopped, really, because the creators ran out of ideas for stories. And they didn’t want to compromise on the quality of what they had and start creating kind of silly stories,” Conroy explained. “So they go, ‘Look, we gotta go in a whole new different direction.’ So then they went to Batman and Robin, they brought in Robin, that was the next series. Then they went into Batman Beyond, you know, recruiting a young guy. And then it was the Justice League. They were always looking at different ways to re-imagine the characters, just so they can get new storylines. A lot of it had to do with trying to come up with stories that weren’t becoming ridiculous.”

• The only part of the article that mentions the end of the DCAU is the opening paragraph

  Kevin Conroy, who has voiced Bruce Wayne-slash-Batman across several iterations for 26 years, said the DC animated universe — or the Timmverse — dried up because the creators “ran out of ideas for stories.

  The rest of the article doesn't support or address this statement.
• Kevin Conroy is a voice actor, not part of the creative or management team, there is no evidence he would have any inside information.

smnc (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the same edits again as TheJoeBro64 has not responded to this section to have an open discussion about this topic. I mean no disrespect, but just pushing these edits through repeatedly without discussion is not the right way to handle this. I don't believe the cited reference supports the edits according to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm happy to let this go if I'm wrong, but unilaterally and repeatedly pushing edits through without discussion is not how things are done. smnc (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(Didn't see this post until now.) Not really sure what the issue here is. The source is reliable and explicitly states at the beginning that this was the reason. Furthermore, Conroy is clearly referring to the wide universe because he also talks about the Justice League shows. If the source simply implied it was the reason, then I'd agree with you because of WP:SYNTH. But it doesn't, it makes a concrete, clear statement. (Conroy was also deeply involved with the production of the shows, so there isn't "no evidence he would have any inside information.") JOEBRO64 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

First, when I undid your edit the second time, back in June, I noted in the edit notes that I was posting on the Talk page. This is how you're supposed to handle things instead of continuously adding and removing edits. You also have refused to even consider my viewpoint and ignored my response to your rebuttal on your own talk page (which I only instigated as you refused to respond here as well). I'm trying very hard to be respectful of you, even though I disagree with your interpretation of the source, but I feel very disrespected in return. Furthermore, you're now stating that Kevin Conroy was "deeply involved" in the production of the shows without presenting any evidence of that. He doesn't have any writing or production credits listed for any of the DCAU shows that I can find. I'm requesting a Third Opinion on this as we seem to be having trouble discussing this, let alone agreeing on a solution. smnc (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't watching the page at the time, so I thought the only post on a talk page you'd made was on mine. How am I being "disrespectful"? I didn't make any personal attacks or insults or anything like that. And how am I "refus[ing] to consider [your] viewpoint" and ignoring you? I'm sorry if you're taking this personally, but on Wikipedia we go by what the sources say. Also, just because Conroy didn't have writing or production credits on DCAU shows doesn't mean he wasn't left out of the behind the scenes stuff. See this article, for example. JOEBRO64 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

While I don't want to pick sides here, I think TheJoebro64's interpretation of the source could be construed as supporting the quote in the article. I believe the initial quote Smnc provided discusses two different shows - Batman Beyond and Justice League, and the quote finishes by saying that both of these ran out of steam. My suggestion would be to leave the quote in, but re-word it to remove the sense of finality - maybe something like "In 2018, Kevin Conroy revealed that work on the DCAU had stalled because the writers ran out of ideas for stories and believed stopping was best, as they did not want to "compromise on the quality of what they had and start creating kind of silly stories." Cheers. ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

Bataman and Harley Quinn in Continuity

I've changed this three times and it keeps changing back, so I'm going to provide justification for why I think the link should be included with the other four films.

1. As for the proof, if you look at the references for Bruce Timm stating that he believes in it's continuity, he actually goes on to say that the reason he doesn't definitively state that it is such is because it's not his to say (as there have been movies such as Batman: Mystery of the Batmwoman that he has had nothing to do wiht that are in continuity). Fair enough, but he is one of the original creators, and arguably the most consistent. If his belief that is in continuity can't be taken, than whose can? Though, I will admit that the term "spirtual successor" leaves room for interpretation.

2. The reference/footnote 40 literally has a link to DC comics' website that tags the movie as a Batman: The Animated Series movie . As we all can agree that B:TAS is the genesis of the DCAU, then this would provide further evidence that it's apart of it.

3. And most importantly, every other instance that continuity is listed on this page, you all have opted to include Batman and Harley Quinn (namely the cast and characters table and the DC Animated Universe table). If it's decided that this movie isn't in continuity, then the one link I added shouldn't be the only thing removed.

So yeah, I'll concede that there isn't, as of yet, any in media links to the events of this movie with the other shows/movies, however, there's just as much as there is for Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and more official sources from the real-world saying that it's included.68.179.38.9 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Batman and Harley Quinn is clearly in continuity. Bruce Timm has clearly stated he considers it cannon, and DC has listed it as a BTAS film. That clearly and unequivocally meets points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from the cannon requirements, and arguably meets point 1 as well. There have been no arguments presented that indicate the movie to be anything but cannon.smnc (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The constant removal of this movie from the page is based on people's personal preference and not the movie's actual standing in DCAU continuity. The Sneak Peek that has been referenced in edits DOES NOT say that the movie isn't in the DCAU. In fact it says “This is kind of a strange red headed nephew of Batman: the Animated Series, but don’t show it to your kids thinking that it’s Batman: the Animated Series. It is it’s own thing kind of extrapolated.” It seems obvious that his statement is in regards to the adult tone of the film, not to mention that every other show in the DCAU isn't BTAS and was extrapolated from it. In fact, in the same sneak peek we get the quotes “They grab these characters that are so established from Batman: the Animated Series and found a way to spin them in this like 80’s roadshow.” from Wes Gleason and “I love this script. It really captures the essence of the show again.” from Loren Lester. Not to mention that same short Jim says he did next to no work on the project and that Bruce had most of it done before he was brought on board.

If we want to take Kreig quotes as indication of canonicity though we could use “This is the first time I get to work in the BTAS Universe" “This is a world we know about and we care about, and have for years.” or “If it’s in a universe, it’s in a BTAS universe or maybe BTAS adjacent." (which he clarifies to be more of a comment on the comedy aspect being different from the original show.) “This is Kevin and Bruce’s Batman from Batman: The Animated Series.” “Batman is still Batman in this. The Batman we know from BTAS.” “I got to jump into the world of saturday morning from a few decades ago.” “I think the most challenging part of this project was that Batman: the Animated Series is kind of a holy of holies in our community, if we have a community, and I think we didn’t want to be disrespectful to it because it’s important to a lot of people, but we were writing a comedy kind of set in that world. So I think that the challenge was to not be offensive to the original audience, but still make a funny movie.” “Y’know what, it is Batman: The Animated series with kind of a layer of comedy on top of it”

Also, Timm's "I'm not sure if it's continuity" quote which others use to dispute canonicity actually DOES NOT dispute anything. The exact quote is:

“I don’t really know. I personally kind of think that it is, but I’m not actually in control of what’s in continuity and what isn’t because there’s been several other classic Batman animated-style movies that I didn’t have anything to do with, so technically they’re canon even though I didn’t have anything to do with them, so technically this could be continuity or it could just be head-canon. I don’t know.”

Which is refering to how Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub-Zero and Mystery of the Batwoman are canon despite his lack of involvement. This implies DC and WB have the final say. WB released that sneak peek i mentioned prior, and that directly tied the movie to BTAS. They had a press release for SDCC in which they said “Animation legend Bruce Timm returns to his Batman: The Animated Series roots with an original tale to mark the 30th entry in the popular DC Universe Original Movies series.” DC also has 3 pages on their website that tag the film with "Batman: the animated series" another page that says “Batman and Harley Quinn promises to be more of a throwback to the lighter Quinn romps of Timm’s iconic Batman: The Animated Series, and once again features the fan-favorite Kevin Conroy as the voice of Batman. Joining him from the B:tAS days is Loren Lester as Nightwing.” and on the back of the trade release for the movie's tie-in comics "Head back to the universe of Batman: The Animated Series in Batman and Harley Quinn."

However, if we want to expand on what Bruce has said regarding the movie:

"it was just an excuse to kind of go back to the BTAS world", “But at the same time, if I was gonna do a Harley Quinn movie, y’know, the BTAS world and the classic Harley costume and personality is the one I’m most comfortable with, so that’s the one I chose to go with.” (1:30)

“Are you excited to come back and revisit the whole Batman series?” - Interviewer “Hell yeah! For sure, absolutely! It wasn’t anything I realized I really wanted until I was in the middle of it and I was like ‘yeah it’s good to be doing this again’.” - Bruce Timm

“I gotta ask, cause you brought it back, so are we gonna see more from the classic Batman: the Animated Series timeline and universe? Do you wanna do more stories?” - interviewer “Yeah, sure, I would be totally up for it. I can pretty much guarantee you that if everyone watching this goes out and buys 20 copies of the movie then we’ll end up doing more.” - Bruce Timm

“I came up with an idea and wanted to do it in the old Batman: The Animated Series universe where she originated, and everybody was okay with that so here we are.”

“Does this have any continuity with Batman: the Animated Series? Or was it inspired by any of the stories?” - Gary Minreau “Umm, y’know, people ask me that a lot. I personally think of it as a continuation of Batman: the Animated Series and the DC Animated Universe. I honestly admit I did not go back and watch every single episode of Batman to make sure that it didn’t contradict anything in there, but I’m sure some fan online will figure out exactly how this works somehow. I mean, y’know, when did Nightwing get his hair trimmed? Does this come before or after the Batman Beyond thing?

It's been made very clear this is part of the DCAU by the writers, corporate, and more of the cast and crew. I can dig up a ton more quotes where these came from. Trailerthrash (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of assumptions on your part, as most of those quotes point to a grey area. Regardless if he's talking about the adult content or not, it doesn't change the fact that Krieg said Batman and Harley Quinn is it's own thing, and "adjacent." Even Bruce Timm's comments leave room for ambiguity. WB marketing the film as "Bruce Timm returning to his B:TAS roots" could just as easily make it an homage, which is how many people saw it. You may not remember, but Superman: Braniac Attacks was marketed the same way in relation to S:TAS, despite that film not being considered canon.

You can consider the film to be part of the official canon, but ultimately it's personal interpretation. Everyone has differing opinions, the official DCAU wiki doesn't cover the film, the DCAU source site considers the film to be a parallal universe to B:TAS, whereas Watchtower Database considers the film to be canon.

Superman: Brainiac Attacks doesn't comply by rules 2 or 3 of this talk page though (it didn't involved Paul Dini or Bruce Timm and it contradicted previous DCAU canon.) Wheras Batman and Harley Quinn doesn't.It complies by all the rules listed, and on multiple occasions Bruce Timm (and other creators) have stated they consider it to be canon to B:TAS. That's about as official as you can get. (And from what I can see, there is no DCAU official wiki it is fan run so it exactly an official source just personal interpretation.) And while it's fine for fans to have their own personal canon- given Batman and Harley Quinn fits all the rules of this page, was promoted as a return to the world of B:TAS by Bruce Timm and Timm himself says he considers it canon...having no reference to it at all on this page feels more like it was driven by fan feelings towards the film and not by whether it 'fit canon.' 124.148.81.157 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Except I would argue Batman and Harley Quinn doesn't comply by rule 3, as it does have some fairly big continuity issues, such as villains being alive who shouldn't be alive. It's a fun easter egg in the movie for old school fans, but in the context of continuity it really doesn't make sense. Admittedly rule 2 has never made sense to me, because Static Shock and Zeta Project don't have Timm or Dini's involvement, so should we not consider those to be canon either?

Marketing lines don't mean much in the context of continuity. Superman: Braniac Attacks was also marketed as a "return" to S:TAS, and the director Curt Geda said he was excited to work in the S:TAS "style" again. In fact, for a long time people used to argue about it's canonicity, and say that people didn't want it to be canon because they didn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExVsSever (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

But it isn't just marketing lines- it's Bruce Timm himself saying that he considers it canon. When two of the 6 rules about what constitues canon relate directly to him (was he heavily involved in the making of the project and does it make use of his animation style) and he is referred to as one of the fathers of the DCAU in the rules, his word should the presumably carry abit of weight. Superman: Brainiac Attacks on the other hand didn't involve Timm, which was one of the contentious points about its canon status. If you don't think it complies by the rules of the article for what is considered canon then name these reasons. Because at the moment you're just dismissing articles by people involved in the film that describe it as canon as just 'marketing lines' without providing evidence for why it isn't canon.

(And re the villains being alive that shouldn't- The Watchtower databases analysis of the film, pointed out that most of the henchman's 'deaths' were ambiguous at best so weren't outright breaks in continuity. As for Rule 2 and how it applies to Static and Zeta Project, I'd say it works in conjunction with rule one. Prior to the Justice League crossover Static wasn't considered part of the DCAU as it wasn't developed by Dini or Timm, but the crossovers established it as part of canon. If they had not had crossovers, they wouldn't have been considered canon.) 125.209.170.122 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'know... people keep mentioning Brainiac Attacks, but as deep as I've looked into the matter, the only time the film was attached to the DCAU by DC/WB was at a comic con before the title was even announced, let alone the art style. By the time both were made public, the corporate entities didn't make the connection again, and the team working on the film explicitly stated it wasn't DCAU. So, while this may just be an assumption, it seems very much like the aforementioned connection was simply to let people know the movies art style, unless anyone has more concrete sources to back up what they're saying.

As for the reappearance of dead villains, the only cases of that are Randa Dwayne and Captain Clown who were both robots, and robots can be rebuilt. The DCAU is essentially kid shows, and for the most part death couldn't get past the censors with very few exceptions, and in most cases were left ambiguous.Trailerthrash (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I was too lazy to respond last time, but again my thoughts on the matter.

Batman and Harley Quinn is a standalone film that has throwbacks and easter eggs to B:TAS. That's how the movie was marketed, that's how most people see the film.

To consider the film as strictly canon, alongside films like Subzero or Phantasm, is disingenuous considering that there is ample evidence that suggests otherwise. Just look at Batman and Harley Quinns wiki page, it's all there.

Cherry picking quotes doesn't really help, considering even Timm's statements are in the grey area. Whether or not the film is canon is personal headcanon. Sam Liu has said something similar in regards to the upcoming JL vs Fatal Five. - Unsigned

That's not how it was marketed. This discussion has already been gone through and ExVsSever (If that isn't you) has shown disregard for it being marketed as part of BTAS and it's universe (the DCAU) saying "Marketing lines don't mean much in the context of continuity." So which is it? It was or wasn't marketed as BTAS/DCAU? Marketing does or doesn't matter? This argument is so circular it's absurd. To act as if this film doesn't deserve a spot on the page while stuff like Gotham Girls, Lobo, Batman Beyond 2014, the tie-in comics, etc do while not having confirmation of canonicity or even having been said by Bruce Timm himself to not be canon is absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is, I'm not cherry picking, I'm contextualizing. Did Bruce call it headcanon? sure. In fact, he specifically said he isn't in charge of canon because there are Batman movies in canon he didn't work on (Sub-Zero and Mystery of the Batwoman.) but then who does this leave in charge of canon? It seems obvious the answer is the attached corporate entities [WB and DC] well guess what? on top of the tons of marketing done connecting the film to the franchise, WB's PR guy punted the continuity question back to Timm who said "Umm, y’know, people ask me that a lot. I personally think of it as a continuation of Batman: the Animated Series and the DC Animated Universe. I honestly admit I did not go back and watch every single episode of Batman to make sure that it didn’t contradict anything in there, but I’m sure some fan online will figure out exactly how this works somehow. I mean, y’know, when did Nightwing get his hair trimmed? Does this come before or after the Batman Beyond thing?". If WB/DC is in charge of continuity, markets it as part of continuity, AND also asks Bruce for his input, then the answer seems pretty obvious. This whole discussion keeps going in a circle and every argument that's brought up eventually caves in on itself.Trailerthrash (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tell me something, if the issue is as clear as you make it seem, why is there so much debate, uncertainty, and conflicting information, even from the creative team itself? I'm getting serious deja vu to Superman: Braniac Attacks right now.

The comics are added to this page in their own category, with a disclaimer that their canonicity is unclear.

For the record, Batman and Harley Quinn already has it's own continuity section on it's page. One of the editors wanted to get rid of it, but I convinced them to keep up there so people can make their own conclusions. I'd suggest we come to a compromise, stop changing this page to your headcanon, and all the information that you put up will remain in Batman and Harley Quinn's page. This conversation is already going in circles, I can't change your mind, you won't change mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExVsSever (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems as though the arguments for the film's inclusion, as well as the fact that it stands up to the guidelines set on this talk page are going ignored. As a result, I've followed wikipedia's guidelines to ask for an outside opinion.Trailerthrash (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Welp, apparently Outside Opinion guidelines only matter when the discussion is between only two people. That being said, Bruce Timm confirmed at Wonder Con last night that JLvF5 is canon. You can check the replies on that referenced tweet, both Sam Liu and Eric Carassco confirm he said this. The movie has minor references to Batman and Harley Quinn. Harley and Ivy return on model from that film, ARGUS returns, and Hal Jordan is confirmed to be a Green Lantern like we saw in the Superbabes wall art. On top of that, Bruce Timm tied the films together in the commentary saying "This is odd because last time we saw these two, Harley was a good guy. And now she's back in Arkham". As it stands, both films are DCAU canon and that's "Word of God"73.109.60.147 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Batman and Harley is canon: https://www.dccomics.com/tags/batman-the-animated-series-movie. Whoever thinks it's not needs to show a quote or evidence that outright denies it, as according to DC Comics, a voice that actually holds standing on whether or not its properties would count as what, it is Zero X Marquis (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References