Talk:The Dark Knight

trouble on page

i've login and when iu come to this page it has my name above top so why is it not there when i go on to the article for i've been here a long time and looked at other articles that had the silver lock on it even gold locks but no problem whys this different here for, whats happened to this articleVeggiegirl (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Dent is Dead.

Can someone update this? It's been confirmed now. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Da gr8 1 (talk • contribs)

I was just about to add that. but I'm guessing the argument could be made that "he's not the creative head etc" so would his words matter? Ahhh, the bottomless pit of endless circular questions which arise from comic book film fans... -- Harish (Talk) - 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated, though was undid by bignole, so reinstated in plot section. Its an important part of the plot, and lies dead is better than appears dead, which indicates hes still alive. EditorGuy07 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've also had producers saying his fate was left ambiguous for a reason. Hence why Eckhart's remarks are good for the cast section, and the plot remains accurate to what actually occurs in the film (which is an ambiguous "death" for Two-Face).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you missed the link where Aaron Eckhart says that Chris Nolan told him that his character was dead... It's linked right above you there. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nolan says he's dead, but the producers say otherwise. You could call that "no consensus" in wikipedese. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And on a general point the plot of any film never requires refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss any such link GhostStalker, I actually read the interview when it first came out. That does not change the fact that the film is a little ambiguous, the producers have said it was intentionally ambiguous. Just because Nolan believes that he will have no use for the character (not to mention that his death was supposed to be truly definitive in the original script) doesn't have anything to do with the plot section of this article (which is based on what the movie shows, not stuff after the fact). Nolan's comment to Eckhart is something relevant to his character in the "Cast/characters" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the preponderance of other "official" material from the film which unambiguously states that he's dead? We're basically keeping this issue open based on an offhand comment made by Emma Thomas, which in the context of the rest of this, seems somewhat overemphasized and potentially out of context. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections are based on what we see in the film. It can be clarified in other sections that Nolan has informed Eckhart that his character is dead, and won't be in another film, but that doesn't change the fact that his character is never actually confirmed dead in this film. Otherwise, you're saying that Michael Bay says Starscream blew up when it left Earth's atmosphere, then we should include that in the Transformers plot, or, better yet, that Barricade is dead even though we never see him take part in any fighting at the end of the film. I've thought he was dead since I saw the film, but my opinion is based on the fact that there will always be some ambiguity to the situation (just because you think Emma Thomas's comments were offhand doesn't change the fact that she made them after the film was released). Eckhart doesn't actually say when he last spoke to Nolan in that interview. It merely says that Nolan told him his character was dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before - the dialogue in the film does confirm that he is dead, even before they discuss covering it up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't know the context of their words, as they were speaking about Harvey Dent. (Playing Devil's Advocate here) Their context could have easily been that Harvey Dent "the man" died (and they may not have been referring to the fall), but that he was replaced by Two-Face "the monster". That's a bit of interpretation based on Gordon and Batman's dialogue exchange. It isn't something mentioned by anyone else after them (though, if Nolan makes another film they may mention that).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy is dead, Eckhart said Nolan said it himself, close discussion and add it to the article. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to jump in, please pay attention to what the topic is discussing. It isn't about whether to include the information, it's about where it should be included. Plot section, or cast and character section. I believe the latter, as this is a well after-the-fact statement made by Nolan to Eckhart, in a private conversation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, that's a negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) which requires speculation and OR to fit. Consider that if Nolan were to make ten more films, none of which mention the character in any way, there would still be "a case" to be made for his being alive. We can't run with that - if evidence exists to show otherwise, then we can change this article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

what kind of stupid conversation is that?! But it in the plot and the cast and characters. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey, please remain civil. Girolamo, we should present it as it is in the film, and in the film he "appears" dead (he isn't conclusively stated to be dead). Nolan says the character is dead to Eckhart, ok, put that in the cast section, specifically saying that "Nolan informed Eckhart that his character is dead and will not return for any future movies".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon says "Now that Harvey's dead..." immediately after the fall and before any talk of a coverup (which Gordon is initially opposed to, as well) - and the devil's advocate argument is a poor one, since Gordon also calls him Harvey throughout the entire standoff. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because Gordon and Batman are not aware of Harvey calling himself "Two-Face". My point was that they could have seen him as a different man, a man that is not "Harvey Dent". I don't remember that exact word use by Gordon, but it makes me wonder why we ever made the section ambiguous to begin with if that's the exact dialogue exchange.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That contradicts your argument - that they're pulling an Obi-Wan by referring to him as "Harvey Dent". And if they weren't aware of such a name, why would they do so? (However , Gordon clearly does know the name, as he's the only person in the movie to use the phrase.) And if he were alive, why are they doing absolutely nothing to take care of him until the EMTs arrive? It doesn't add up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict my argument, you just assumed that I originally meant that they saw him as "Two-Face" (the title). I was using that for the purposes of the argument, so we all understood what I mean when I said "someone else". As for Gordon knowing the name, you're missing the point. Gordon is aware of what the cops used to refer to Harvey, made all the more real when Harvey makes him say it in the hospital. Gordon does know know that Harvey is no longer "Harvey" and is literally assumed the personality (and name) of "Two-Face". If you want to make the argument "why aren't they doing anything for him", then I say "why didn't they even check his pulse to really make sure he was dead?" They just walk up, look at him, and start talking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is hopeless - endless sourced info vs. "well, he could be alive". I give up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and sorry Bignole.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, he could be. Wrad (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but in a sources vs possiblity fight, the sources usually win, especially on Wikipedia. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But, in this case we have two sources contradicting each other. We have Emma Thomas saying it is intentionally ambiguous in an interview, and then we have Eckhart saying that Nolan told him that his character is dead. Both of which could mean any number of things. Nolan could simply be saying, "don't expect to be in another film. as far as I'm concerned the character is dead." Emma Thomas could be saying, "if we want to bring him back, it's left ambiguous enough that we could easily create a loophole".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll listen to the director not the producer. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll listen to both. I'm with Bignole. 'Appears dead' in plot, 'Nolan told Eckhart the character was dead and wouldn't be used again' in cast. Especially since plot can change if Nolan declines a third film, shopping out the third installment to another who finds a good story in Dent's ongoing bitterness. Plots should only reflect what's seen 'appears dead', i can't recall Gordon saying 'now that Harvey's dead', and i watched it the second time after the previous long debate here, knowing that conversation was coming, and listening for such confirmations.

The cast and production sections, however, speak to the real world intent of those making the film, and there it is fully sensible to put the director's intent and the producer's comment. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should put their comments in the article and leaf him "appeared dead", persummably in Cast and Characters under Dent? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This has always been such a comical debate. And based on successive bits of evidence I've come down on both sides at different times. Yes. I. Am. A. Waffler. But it seems that "sourced" should win over "possibility". This may start to border on original research as basically it's Bignoles interpretation (supported by several others). --FilmFan69 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my "interpretation", as I've stated before, I thought he was dead when I saw the film (always have, still do). The idea of "source trumps possibility" is moot, as there are 2 sources with competing ideas. Now, you can get into who was should go with, but it really isn't our choice to say the director is better than the person supplying the money (or vice versa for that matter), but in all honesty, if Warner Bros says "we want Two-Face back", Nolan can either deal or walk away (the bigger irony is husband and wife with contrasting words). Hence why I prefer the ambigous plot section, and Nolan's words in the cast section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But ambiguity is not the same is as "not dead" - it's a neutral statement. So it's Thomas's word (neutral) and Nolan's (dead) - these aren't contradictory statements. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to pinpoint whether the character died or not, the film itself left that ambiguous so our plot summary should remain ambiguous. The fact that the filmmakers have commented on the character's death is of course important, but it should be mentioned with out-of-universe context (ie, clarifying that the filmmakers confirmed it, not just stating his death as cold hard fact). I agree with Bignole and ThuranX's suggestions for how to convey this information.  Paul  730 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Script says he��dead, novelisation says hes dead, characters say hes dead, "Dent" actor says hes dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNf6T4f_Y_0 and http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38179), director says hes dead (and his brother happens to be the script writer) what more do you need?? - He is dead - appears dead in the article means hes alive, leave it as dead in the article EditorGuy07 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the script was written well before Ledger died. The novelization has not bearing on this film (as novelization can not only change from the film, but are usually based on early drafts of the script). I don't recall the characters literally saying he died . Eckhart said he died because Nolan told Eckhart that (thus, you cannot make that two separate thoughts). Emma Thomas says that he fate (notice how she used the word "fate") was intentionally ambiguous. "Appears dead" does not suggest that he is alive. It means that by appearances, he is dead, unless he otherwise gets up and starts moving again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Eckhart said he died because Nolan told Eckhart that" Exactly - Point, set and match. He's dead because the DIRECTOR says so. What Nolan says outways what a producers believes majorly. I think this ends the duscussion EditorGuy07 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, we don't know when Nolan told Eckhart that. Eckhart didn't say "Nolan told me 20 minutes ago". What he said was that Nolan informed him that his character was dead and wouldn't not be in the next film. That could very well mean that Nolan does not plan to use the character, and as far as HE is concerned the character is dead. Given that Nolan hasn't even agreed to make another film yet, let alone have a story, anything can change as far as that goes. Secondly, if their discussion happened while filming, you have to remember that the original script had Dent's face written as "twisted neck, etc etc" (clear death); that was before Ledger died. Third, Nolan does not control the Batman films outright. He has creative control with the films to an extent. If Warner Bros says, "we want Two-Face" there isn't anything to be said; hence why Thomas stated that his death was ambiguous for a reason. The film does not directly confirm the character as dead (sorry, I don't recall any specific dialogue stating such); Eckhart's words should be displayed in the cast and characters section. Leave the plot section as it is (which is based purely on what the film depicts).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"What he said was that Nolan informed him that his character was dead and wouldn't not be in the next film. That could very well mean that Nolan does not plan to use the character, and as far as HE is concerned the character is dead." Exactly, he's the director, his brother is the script writer, he comes up with the story - end off. "I don't recall the characters literally saying he died", there was a big memorial serice, Gordon talked about what would the people think when they found out what he had done - pretty clear they know hes dead - he was shown dead! He Is Dead EditorGuy07 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Nolan's wife is a producer, and she is the one that said it was intentionally ambigous what does that mean? I mean, you're throwing his brother out there like it means something. We saw a service, the film never actually stated (or showed) that it was a funeral service (you didn't see a casket). We didn't see the character "dead", we saw him lying on the ground. Again, playing Devil's Advocate here, he could have merely been unconscious. Their dialogue about "what if people find out what he did" has no indication of death, it's merely a statement about his actions. Also, please loose the attitude, it is not appropriate for our discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"you're throwing his brother out there like it means something" He's the screenwriter - he wrote the script - yes it does mean something, he knows whats going on. "Also, please loose the attitude" I'm just stating facts - you're just finding ways to get ur own way EditorGuy07 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to your "facts", I'm referring to your use of exclamation marks. Again, the script was written before Ledger died (before filming was complete). Notice how the completed film did not depict Dent's fate exactly the way it was written in the script.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We just need to leave this ambiguous, report on who said what, let the reader decide, and let some time pass for this to clear up. The film isn't even out of theaters yet, we don't need to have an absolute "he's dead" or "he's not dead" right now. It isn't necessary and it would be jumping the gun. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Wrad. This isn't rocket science, folks. We've got people who want to say 'is dead' everywhere and remove a legit source, and people who want to say 'appears dead' in the plot and 'left ambiguous', cited to director's producer wife, and 'is dead' to secondhand comment from Nolan via Eckhart (which, in court, would be hearsay). One gives an audience opinion, the second presents all facts neutrally. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, isnt Wikipedia all about neutral facts? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why the way that BigNole, Wrad, and I support should be used. It presents the facts in neutral fashion within proper context within each section. ThuranX (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone realized how funny it is that Two-face is insisting that he is dead? Hehehehe... [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No...I dont get the joke there. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but after a search, I found the movie script online in PDF[2]. Looks legit. Anyway on page 163 of 167 is says, "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD." DrNegative (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it, but it has been brought up (I don't know about this thread, but in the numerous ones before it). Basically, not only can we not verify the authenticity of the script, even if we could it would not matter. The script is the script and not necessarily something that is adhered to entirely while filming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems accurate, most of the lines are correct, the scenes - and I'm pretty sure the script is the basis of the film. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD Realease date

If anybody knows when the dark knight will be out on dvd somebody should put it on the article.Xwingdude (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I bought it on DVD on Wednesday (10 September) here in Korea. So I'll add that to the DVD release date section.

....hmmm, I can't add it to the article because there's no "edit this article" tab. Anyhow, the DVD is widely available here as of 10 September. Great quality, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can leave your source for it being released in Korea so early on the talk page, and someone else will add it for you. Right now the page is disabled for unregistered, or newly registered users.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Awards

It has just received an award for best superhero film on the national film awards in the UK. Christian Bale was nominated for best actor and lost to Johnny Depp (sp?) Should an awards section be added? - (rushdadj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.219.112 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What award? Throw us a ref. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a ref [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.219.112 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not notable? It won an award, and unless it's something such as a dog show, it seems pretty notable. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles

I found these articles and not sure if its something that the article should include. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The first one is from Reuters, which I'd say is a more reliable source than Zap2It. Looks like something that should go in release. I'll add it in. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is from E! Online, I think it has more verifiability than Zap2It. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Reuters is more verifiable than E! Online. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sequel (again)

http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=8738 Hm? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Written, 2008-05-06, before the release of The Dark Knight. Given that Nolan has stated (after the release of The Dark Knight) that he isn't sure if he'll do another, or what the story is, this article doesn't have any merit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face or Dent

Bignole's recent reversion to changes by ScottDrumr brings up an interesting point. Isn't Harvey's transformation, by the time we reach the end of the film, complete? In other words, just because Gordon and Batman haven't coined a name for Dent, in reality, he is Two-Face. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be only from the poit of view of Gordon and Batman. Our description can be from an omniscient third-person viewpoint. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, does he really start referring to himself as "Two-Face"? A similar incident occurred with Spider-Man 3, where some editors were changing Eddie Brock to Venom, when no one in the film actually refered to him as Venom when acknowledging his presence. The only times I remember "Two-Face" being used was when Dent demanded that Gordon speak the name that the officers had for him when he was a young attorney. I don't recall him ever using it after that, or it even being mentioned again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we know he's Two-Face, and he can be called that in the cast section, but it is very clear that all the characters are talking to Dent, so I'm for leaving it as Dent. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But my point is that, from our perspective, we're omniscient, and we know he's Two-Face. Irrespective of whether or not the characters have coined a name for him. But the fact that Dent brings up the name when talking to Gordon seems to imply that he was thinking of himself that way. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but, from my understanding of the MOS, plot summaries are supposed to be in-universe; therefore, calling him Two-Face in the plot summary would be going out-of-universe. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about that, but what they should not do is incorporate the editors knowledge of what "is", over what is "presented". He is not presented in the film as "Two-Face", beyond that quick little jab at the name while in the hospital. Just like in Spider-Man 3, Eddie is never presented as "Venom", even though the credits list the name and we all know as the audience who the character is. Unfortunately, what WE know from our own historical knowledge of who the character is, does not supercede the fact that the film never calls him such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he ever refer to himself as Dent, either? Wrad (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Other characters call him Dent, even after he takes on the classic "Two-Face" look (think Gordon yelling at Batman "I have to save Dent!" and Batman telling Gordon near the end that people can't know about Dent). He never refers to himself as Two-Face, I remember that much. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. He does refer to himself as Two-Face when talking to Gordon. He talks about how they used to call him Two-Face back in the day and now that name fits.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where we all said, "other than the hospital scene where Dent demands that Gordon say the name". The difference is, he doesn't actually start making people call him that. When he meets the cop in the bar, the cop is calling him "Dent", and he never corrects him. Everyone still calls him Dent, and he never corrects them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS was cited earlier with as a reason to keep Dent's name and not use Two-Face but I read the MOS for film and found nothing of the sort. At the bottom of that page it references the MOS for fiction which I read as well. I culled the following from the two articles:

• "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

• "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

• "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director."

• "Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced."

As I read it, there's nothing specifying one way or another how one should treat the plot. In fact, it seems that the MOS encourages the third-person perspective. I included the sentences about themes to show that in general, we need to consider the real-world context. Since nothing exists in the WP:Plot section this is the closest we come to a direcive. The way I see it, it's wrong to place this much emphasis on what the characters are calling Dent. Our perspective, according to MOS is more important here. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The established way to write the plot section has long since been to follow what the film shows, and not what your interpretation (or previously knowledge) is. Please note that the last two things on theme say nothing about "our perspective". What they state is that themes can be things that professional writers see, but that the film's creators did not intend (which has nothing to do with the names of a character. If Roger Ebert watched The Dark Knight and felt that Dent was really the thematical embodiment of Zeus, we wouldn't change his name to "Zeus" throughout the plot section, or any other section for that matter). There is a difference between incorporating information that was not intended by the creators, and another to change what the creators did to satisfy the fanboy's dreams of seeing Two-Face on the screen. The fact remains that the film never calls him such. We don't call Eddie Brock "Venom" in the Spider-Man 3 plot; we didn't go back to the Spider-Man plot and change the name of the carjacker to David Carridine when it was revealed in the third film; Liam Neeson is known as "Henri Ducard" for all of the Batman Begins plot, until the moment that he actually reveals that his name IS Ra's Al Ghul. Otherwise, since we know that Neeson's character is Ra's from the start (after watching the film), by your theory we should swap out "Ducard" because that really isn't his name. As a matter of fact, I say we remove the "calling himself 'Two-Face'" from the following statement--"Dent, calling himself "Two-Face", goes on a personal vendetta confronting the cops and mobsters one by one, deciding their fates with the flip of a coin."--as we've established that he never actually "calls himself" that. What he does is make a passing reference to the fact that the police officers nicknamed him that and now it is fitting given his disfigurement. He does not assume that name once he breaks out of the hospital.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, best not to use the Ducard/Ra's example for Batman Begins, as there is currently a debate over there about whether or not to continue calling him Ducard after the reveal that he is really Ra's. But, yeah, everything else you said seems pretty solid (although I'm guessing somewhere in the Spider-Man film article the carjacker is named David Carradine?) On a different note, could someone please tell ThuranX not to get "offended" by me putting this comment here, where I am clearly responding to Bignole and not to him? Now he has moved this comment somewhere and called my edit putting it back here "vandalism" which I simply will not stand for. All this is is a response to Bignole. Pure and simple. And yet he tells me to "bring it on" and calls me a vandal. OVER A STUPID PLACEMENT OF A COMMENT. And before anyone tries to tell me about 3RR, I have added to this comment because I am not interested in getting an stupid edit war over something stupid with someone who appears to get insulted easily. Removing this section now would clearly be considered vandalism. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So if it's established how come it's not a part of MOS. You're telling me it's long established but maybe that should be set in stone. You name several examples but I'll be willing to bet there are plenty of example that don't in fact follow this pattern. And why they don't follow the pattern would be that there's no MOS to guide that practice. --FilmFan69 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The general policies and guidelines cover this in as far as that supposing a pseudonym (rather than a nickname) on the basis of source material rather than substantive content within the film and its supporting materials itself would be considered original research. Beyond that, it is unreasonable to suppose that Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and MOS could ever comprehensively and unambiguously resolve every possible issue regarding the summarization of human knowledge, and thus for exactly this purpose consensus needs to be established, but only upon a firm groundwork based on larger existing and applicable policies and guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan, the reason the MOS doesn't state such a thing is because it is miniscule in the overall goal of the guideline. Specifying such minute details would border on WP:CREEP. Instead, we allow other guidelines and policies to handle vague and/or small issues that would otherwise bog down a general MOS page. In this case, assuming that he is called "Two-Face" in the film simply because we know that is who the character is in comic book lore would be original research. The name "Two-Face" is in the cast section, as even the director refers to him as such, but in regards to what actually occurs in the film itself, no one in the film refers to him as "Two-Face" (again, beyond that little dialogue exchange where Dent makes the comment that their nickname for him has literal meaning now). To put it another way; had their nickname for him been "Turn Coat", which detaches from the mythology of the character, would you still be fighting to change the subsequent naming for the character to "Turn Coat"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense but I feel like you play the WP:OR card whenever you disagree with someone else's interpretation of the guidelines. And they didn't call him Turn Coat so why bother with a silly example like that? --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, it's not just lore. It's the character's name, the director refers to him as such, the producers refer to him as such, they say the name in the film. That's about as far from WP:OR as you can get. --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The director, producers and stars can call him whatever they want when promoting the film, or talking about the film. However the plot is based on what is seen on screen, and on screen he is Dent to the end. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan, again, everyone involved in Spider-Man 3 called Grace's character "Venom". Hell, that name even appears in the credits, yet it is never once uttered in the film. Second, if you don't understand the purpose of an analogy (my "silly example"), then I cannot help you. You're letting your bias (previous knowledge of how the character is identified) cloud your judgement on how to present the character in this section. The key part of what you said was, "they say the name". They also say "Dark Knight", but we aren't substituting that for "Batman" all over the place. They might "say" the name, but they don't actually call him "Two-Face". Even in the hospital scene, Gordon does not call him "Two-Face", he merely recounts the name. Technically, it is OR, it's just a more specific kind called synthesis: where you take multiple sources and use them to back a different argument. The argument is, "what is his name in the film", not, "what is the name of the character is the Batman mythology". In the film, he goes by "Harvey Dent" from start to finish, and no where in there does he stop and say, "My name is 'Two-Face'". It's as simple as that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what an analogy is but thanks for the unnecessary English lesson.. When it's presented as an obviously snide remark then I think it useless to the discussion at hand. I am also aware that they "say Dark Knight" but it's not listed as such in the credits so I'm not arguing that point. Another throughly useless example from you - but thanks anyway. My judgement is not clouded - I'm simply trying to explore the options here. You ignored valid points by only picking one and calling it my "key" argument. It wasn't. I made several points that clearly show that we need to approach this from outside the universe of the film itself. It HELPS the reader if the character is named correctly. To someone who didn't know ANYTHING about the film, they would wonder why there's a character called Two-Face who doesn't seem to make an appearance in the plot. You are probably more guilty of clouded judgement as you can't seem to approach this from an objective viewpoint - that of someone unfamiliar with the material. I could just as easily accuse you of squatting on the page as you history shows that you resist any change to the page that doesn't agree with your own interpretation. It's not "as simple as that" buddy. But to you it is and you always win. So once again... Congratulations! You still own the page! Yaaaaaay! --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're saying it helps the reader if we name the character something that he is not named in the film? That makes a lot of sense, given that he is only ever called "Harvey Dent" in the entirety of the film. My objective point of view is that I'm basing my opinion on what the film actually shows, not who the character is supposed to be. In the film, does Harvey Dent ever say that his name is Two-Face? Do any of the characters ever acknowledge him as Two-Face in the film (the bit in the hospital is not an acknowledgement of who he is)? There answe ris "no" to both of those, so why would we call him something that he is never called in the film? That doesn't make any sense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. The character is named Harvey Dent/Two-Face. If someone read the plot and knew none of the back story they'd wonder why the plot section refers to him as Dent the whole time if in the cast list his character is called Harvey Dent/Two-Face. You're the one not making any sense. And I know you're not this dumb so don't act like you don't get what I'm saying. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the character is "credited" as "Harvey Dent/Two-Face". The character is not "named" that. Why would the plot just switch from "Dent" to "Two-Face"? Since he never actually starts referring to himself that way, wouldn't the reader wonder why the plot just starts referring to him by that name? We cannot say, "Now calling himself 'Two-Face'", because he never does that, so it would draw more confusion to switch for no apparent reason than it would for a reader to go to the cast section and see "Harvey Dent/Two-Face" and wonder what they name isn't in the plot section. Especially when they can click the link and follow it to the Two-Face page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec):No apparent reason?! Are you daft? His character is named - oh, wait - sorry - "credited" as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. You seem to think the reader would wonder "why the sudden switch"...well it's equally possible that the reader would wonder why he's "credited" as something that NEVER gets mentioned in the plot. How can you possibly think that is sound judgement and be so supposedly baffled by what I'm saying? You very well could make reference to his character's transformation with an acknowledgement that in the film, it is verbally referenced only once. Not doing so is to obfuscate the true plot. And don't come at me with WP:OR or SYNTHESIS. I don't need a lecture. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They make a passing reference to "Two-Face", that still does not make sense as to why you would just suddently start calling him by a nickname that was only mentioned and never actually used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the glaring fact that he's credited as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. If it was a nickname that didn't appear in the credits then, yeah, I would see your point. But thats not the case here. Regardless of whether or not it get's mentioned more than once in the film, that's his character's name. If I had never seen the story, read the cast list and then read the plot, I would be confused as to why this actor was credited with a role that doesn't get mentioned in the plot summary. Not knowing the story I would begin to think that the cast list was in error or that someone deleted a plot point because they thought it would be a spoiler. If Nolan had seen fit to not credit him as Harvey Dent/Two-Face and chose only "Harvey Dent" then I could also see omitting the name from the plot. But this is also not the case. You're position does not make sense from the perspective of a reader coming to the plot from an outside perspective. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So what if he is credit as that, he isn't called that. If someone didn't stay for the credits of the movie, and had not Earthly idea of who the characters was in the comics, they would wonder why you are switching his name for no reason in the plot section. You seem to be the only one arguing for this, with many others tell you the same thing I have said repeatedly (and have no intention of saying again beyond this post). No one in the film does he call himself "Two-Face". He makes a comment that the nickname the cops had for him seems fitting for his appearance, and that is where it ends. Just like in Spider-Man 3, where Topher Grace is credited as "Eddie Brock/Venom", but no where in the movies does he ever actually use that name, no where does Dent actually start calling him that. Because of that, it makes no logical sense to start referring to him as "Two-Face" based solely on the fact that he is "credited" as that. The credit has no bearing on what actually occurred in the film. I have had enough of this circular argument. You have yourself a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"So what"? How are the credits not relevant? It's the character's name - as stipulated by the director! What world do you live in where the credit don't matter? Digging in your heels does not bolster your faulty logic either. But this is just like you Bignole. Once you decide your argument is the best, you don't listen to reason. So...yes...walk away. But you know I'm right, you just can't admit it. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok this argument is ridiculous both ways! how about we just do what they did to Eddie Brock in the Spiderman 3 section? by just having it, Harvey Dent/Two-Face? that way, you know that he's both?, the fact is, we all know that he's Two-Face. He may have not been called it on screen, but he is weather we like it or not, so just put both?Onepiece226 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

I'd be fine with that... --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so after Dent's Accident, he'll be known as in the plot section as Dent/Two-Face. Sounds good?Onepiece226 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

Fine by me. It covers both viewpoints. [OnePiece - I took out the leading space on your post to fix the formatting. Hope thats ok.] --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having it as Dent/Two-Face is clunky-looking. I would also add that in the plot section for Spider-Man 3, nowhere does it say "Eddie Brock/Venom". So, I am opposed to saying "Dent/Two-Face" or "Two-Face" anywhere in the plot section. The reader will be smart enough to realize from reading the plot description and the lead that Dent and Two-Face are the same person. Having it in the plot section is out of context. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Anakinjmt, considering Two-Face isn't mentioned in the lead either I seriously doubt that a reader could surmise that Dent is Two-Face. So your argument is moot. A reader would still be confused. Smart or not. --FilmFan69 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, as one would think it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. But, even so, if the click on "Harvey Dent" they'll get taken to Two-Face. And he IS a well-known villain. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But to assume prior knowledge is to do a disservice to the reader. You should assume that the reader is coming to the article in need of info, not with info in hand. So then I move that we add something to the lead and then we can leave the plot alone.--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[of course Bignole has walked off the set so to speak so does anybody want to ask him his opinion on adding a reference to the lead in lieu of adding it to the plot? He has ceased to deal with me as he thinks my arguments are circular. (see above) --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter weather he is known as Two-Face or not in the comics. He is never referred to as Two-Face (maybe Harvey Two-Face, but never just Two-Face) so he should be plainly considered Harvey Dent. And again, even though he asks Gordon what name they referred to him as in the hospital scene, that was simply a reference to the comics so people wouldnt get mad that the name Two-Face wasn't at least mentioned. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that last sentence? --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article, and part of the article speaks of the character from an OOU perspective (in which case, he is referred to as "Two-Face" in most of those exchanges), so using 'Two-Face' in the lead would be appropriate. Plus, the first sentence in the "Cast and characters" section for Dent states: "The Gotham district attorney who is hailed as Gotham's 'White Knight'; Dent's battle with the Joker transforms Dent into a murderous, disfigured vigilante called 'Two-Face'." - That probably would easily explain any confusion a reader might have when they see "Harvey Dent/Two-Face" in that section, as it is right beside said title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the lead - I added Two-Face in parentheses next to Harvey Dent. {EDIT: actually a slash - the parentheses looked like hell}--FilmFan69 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It just doesnt seem right for us to call him Two-Face if he is never called Two-Face. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 10:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if he's called Two-Face if he IS two-face?68.1.168.231 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

But technically, HE ISN'T in TDK. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically he is. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he got half of his face blown up he's automatically Two-Face? What about Darkman? Half of his face got deformed. Is he Two-Face? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Jokes are supposed to be funny--FilmFan69 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is whether we call him Two-Face anywhere in the plot section, right? As long as it's made clear in the lead and cast section (which it is), then we can forgo calling him Two-Face in the plot, since he's not. The way it is now looks fine to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And I'm fine with the compromise actually. Though, I may be able to get it to read better. It is a tad inelegant at this point. But I think, ironically enough, User:Two-Face is not happy with this.... --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Modifications

I find that if I don't justify my changes then somebody will come along and undo them. I have added minor details about the Joker's actions in TDK. The amount of money he stole was $68,000,000 Lau tells us as much in the film. I have also tried to separate out a key plot point Lau had the bulk of the money (4 out of the 5 mob banks). The Joker only stole one of the five deposits. I also added the fact that Batman is wearing body armor, otherwise I felt this leds to impression that he was seriously injured. Lucius Fox described the new Batsuit as being "Hardened Kevlar plates on a titanium fiber tri-weave for flexibility..." Including the fact that he was wearing armor may explain why he was able to tackle Dent after he was shot. As for references, apart from seeing the film, I've got a link to the TDK script if someone wants to put it up. [4]. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs)

we discussed the stript in the "Harvey Dent is Dead" section. The script seems accurate to me. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)