Talk:Batman Begins

Trilogy source in lede

Could I please solicit your views on the need to have a source in the lede backing up the statement that this film is the first part of the Dark Knight Trilogy? Do you think it's necessary to cite it, and if so, cite it within the lede? Thanks in advance.  drewmunn  talk  14:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that it is not required. Up until this point, it's not something that I've found any editor requesting or attempting to include on any of the 3 articles pertaining to the trilogy.  drewmunn  talk  14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not a policy. Neither is BRD. However, WP:LEADCITE, which is a policy, does not support your in the slightest. Your continuously tendentious reverts are nothing but a clear case of WP:POINT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEADCITE is not policy! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn, you got me... it's a guideline, which still takes precedence over an essay. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this is not so much on the need to have a source, as it is on the need (or lack thereof) to persistently undo another editor's work. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, is it really a bona fide "trilogy"? Is there such a thing as the "Dark Knight" trilogy, or is it a retroactively applied construct for marketing purposes? I'd say reword it to avoid the controversy. And Batman in film has already been linked in the lead section, so no need to link again. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

How about:

The film is followed by The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in a continual story-arc which has later been referred to as the Dark Knight trilogy.

--Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

...and there we go. This is why the source came in the first place. A few more can be easily provided upon request, just Google the phrase "Dark Knight Trilogy". Our job as Wikipedians is to report what these sources say. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your source doesn't really prove its existence anyway; it's an article written by a critic. At best, it's part of a wider set of sources that prove it's a recognised entity, not that it's an official trilogy.  drewmunn  talk  16:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me where you see the word "official" mentioned next to the word "trilogy" in the lead paragraph. Again, a few more sources can be easily Googled. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is, I'm replying to Rob's point that it may be "retroactively applied construct" and not a "bona fide "trilogy"", and stating that your source is not sufficient to prove that it is not a marketing device.  drewmunn  talk  16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Before we digress completely, the topic of this discussion is whether you should insist on excluding a valid source for the term "Dark Knight Trilogy". As you put it earlier, it's proof of the phrase being a recognized entity, which is meant to prevent editors from contesting it in the future. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is it isn't the first part of a trilogy, that implies it was a planned trilogy. It was a single film that did just OK enough to get a sequel which exploded and warranted a third film that they've retroactively dubbed a trilogy. Most films which unintentionally, even if desirably, spawned a series of films are credited as being successful enough to spawn a series of films, we do not however say that Die Hard is the first part of the Die Hard quintology, we WOULD say Die Hard's success spawned a series of films, linking to the franchise page if necessary and not already linked. And sources do not belong in the lede. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll sum up the points which seem to have been (intentionally?) missed:

1. It doesn't imply a thing. Everything you're claiming is nothing but original research and/or synthesis.
2. Die Hard quintology is not a term backed up by multiple reliable sources. However, Dark Knight trilogy is.
3. Show me where in the WP:LEADCITE guideline (which is the most pertinent) is it stated that sources do not belong in the lead section. If anything, it's the opposite. Valid sources are rarely excluded on Wikipedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It does imply a thing. Which of these sources (and ill give you time to read them because none of them will) backup that it was created as a trilogy? Done reading? None of them? Guess that it wasn't the first part of a trilogy then. Lord of The Rings is the first part of a trilogy, it is a film designed as the first of three films. Batman Begins was a Batman film, it's major intent being a reboot of the previous Batman series of films. It's spanning into a trilogy is circumstance not intention, and given that there are only two other films is not obscene nor inaccurate to say that it was followed by two sequels 'insert film name'. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Would, therefore "franchise" be a more suitable term? That doesn't imply any pre-planning.  drewmunn  talk  18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, it isn't a franchise, it's a series of films. Batman is a franchise, this series is a part of that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: We do not need a citation. Christopher Nolan's Batman films are grouped as a trilogy, and this is the first film in the trilogy. (Whether or not the trilogy was planned is a separate discussion, I believe.) I cannot see why this would be realistically challenged. The guideline WP:LEADCITE is supposed to apply to more controversial points. For example, intelligent design is riddled with inline citations. In contrast, this is a superhero film. To have an inline citation for something that is not realistically challenged is pedantic. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think the issue of whether something should be cited or not in the lede is largely a red herring. The lede should summarise the contents of the article, so the fact that something has to be sourced in the lede—regardless of whether it actually needs to be sourced—highlights a shortcoming of the article. If I were the primary editor of this article, I would simply added a short "sequel" section where the two sequels can be briefly discussed. Any necessary cites can go there and the lede can be left to do what it should: summarise the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• The point of my rewording was to be neutral and avoid any controversy, yet still convey the same meaning... --Rob Sinden (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's a movie critic all of a sudden... let's drop the forum and get back to a proper Wikipedia discussion, shall we? We oughtta ask ourselves the following:

1. Are there multiple reliable sources that define the three Batman films directed by Nolan as his "Dark Knight trilogy"?
2. Are there multiple reliable sources that distinguish those films from their Burton-Schumacher counterparts? (I know that this is already covered in the article, but this is directly pertinent to the core subject of this discussion.)
3. Is Batman Begins the first of these three films?
4. Do the three films, in their order of release, convey a story arc with a beginning and an end?

Since the (objective) answer to all these questions is "yes", I don't really understand what there is left to argue about. My edit "in question" never mentioned, implicitly or explicitly, whether the trilogy was planned or not; other participants in this discussion sort of pinned the word "planned" as a total red herring, with the hopes of stemming the discussion into an unrelated direction (and congratulations, whoever you are – "Great success!"). I'll reiterate what has already been said: our job as Wikipedians is to report what our sources tell us. This should be much simpler than this has become. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• An illustrative example: When Kevin Smith made Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, he intended for it to be the last of the View Askewniverse film series. However, several years later he made Clerks II. Should this not be included in that series because of his original intention in 2001? How about the upcoming Clerks III, upon which he only decided about a year ago, after mocking the idea in several previous interviews? Moreover, Smith himself admitted that back when he made Clerks, he expected it to fail miserably, and could never even dream of continuing a successful filmmaking career. Does it mean that Clerks is not the first in the View Askewniverse series? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use my suggested wording, we avoid the controversy. By stating that it has been referred to as a trilogy is incontrovertible - it has been referred to as a trilogy - no-one would dispute that, so we wouldn't need a source. We don't need to discuss here the nuances of whether it is or isn't a trilogy, we can avoid the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, why are you seeking out an inline citation for that particular detail compared to everything else in the lead section? Something like the classic comic book storylines from which it draws inspiration is not so "obvious" or readily verifiable and would be a better case for warranting an inline citation. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A Citation should not be included for this lone fact in the WP:LEAD because the LEAD appears to be written in the uncited LEAD format with all facts cited in the main body. A LEAD is suppose to either have all or none of its facts cited and in this case none is the choice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Robsinden, we can do that, although it is a bit clumsy. The sources say it's a trilogy, we say it's a trilogy. Why is it controversial when it's that simple?

There is controversy over whether it is a trilogy or not, which is why, I assume, that the citation was added in the first place. Certainly, at the time the film was released, there is no indication that a trilogy was planned. If we say it has latterly been referred to as a trilogy, there's no controversy there, so no reason to add the citation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This "controversy" is made up, because according to multiple reliable sources, it is a trilogy. Whether it was planned this way in 2005 or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, the trilogy exists now, with Batman Begins opening it. Please read my previous comments, as well as the Kevin Smith analogy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, a lot of sources just mention "Nolan's Batman trilogy" or something similar. My personal view is that a film that happens to get two sequels is not a trilogy, and that "The Dark Knight Trilogy" is a name invented down the line by Warner Bros. I'm not going to argue the point, as I know others do not share this view, but, again, my wording would keep most people happy, and you wouldn't need a citation in the lead for people who say that it isn't a trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your personal view (as well as mine) is not criteria for inclusion (or exclusion). Why are we doing all these backflips to keep a source out of Wikipedia? Am I the only one who sees the utter absurdity in this? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Erik, I'm not seeking out an inline citation, I included it in my original edit because I always try to back up my edits with sources. What bothers me is Sonicdrewdriver's adamant insistence on excluding the source.
• TonyTheTiger, where on Earth did you find those guidelines you appear to be citing? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The current version of WP:LEADCITE is silent on this issue. However, it has been a longstanding policy at WP:FAC to encourage either or in terms of cited or uncited. The regs at FAC will surely back this up. Don't know where it comes from.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So if the source is moved to a different section, will it be acceptable then? Because it's still about this film being the first in the Dark Knight trilogy, regardless of what intentions the production team bore at the time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question So how is Nolan's "set of three films" different from Jackson's TLOTR trilogy? Both series include three films and have a single story arc. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Batman Begins was a single film that did well enough to warrant a sequel. It was not conceived as a three film sequence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's any different from what happened with TLOTR. If the first film had flopped, would the sequel have been shot? Randomuser112 (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that specific case, all three films were shot together. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In both trilogies, there's a single story arc so I don't see what's the problem here. This franchise was not conceived as a trilogy from the beginning, but I don't see how that's relevant. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the other comments then. There's no single story arc I don't know where you got that from, the LOTR films are essentially one long film telling the exact same story thread. How you find the two comparable is confusing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that there's no single story arc in the three Batman films? Because if there is a story arc, then it qualifies as a trilogy. Randomuser112 (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Does The Godfather qualify as a trilogy? Randomuser112 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It may not have been conceived as a three film sequence, but it definitely is now. The Kevin Smith analogy that I drew earlier in this discussion is a shining example of this type of dynamic creation of a film series. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

While many folks here make good points, I think that Betty Logan pretty much nailed it on several points. First of all, cites in the Lede - especially when there is cited text in the body of the article - are largely stupid. They clearly mark a hotly contested viewpoint amongst editors, and ruin the flow of the initial summary of the article. It's a summary of the article. The article itself provides the details (and that includes references).

Secondly, I agree with Betty that a sequel section would not kill this article. It would be nice - if it can be verified by a reliable source - how the film either began as a one-off or as a planned trilogy.

The problem with the above is that in citing movie reviewers who call it a trilogy is that we walk a very fine line; reviewers can also get it wrong. Sources citing the creators of the films trump critics where it pertains to the development of other films after the first.

Lastly, I cannot speak for anyone else, but there is a lot of bad faith and incivility being tossed around here. That is, in a nutshell, fucking stupid. One doesn't get the honey by kicking over the beehive. Be nice and work with others, or simply go away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether something should be cited or not in the lede is largely a red herring. The lede should summarise the contents of the article, so the fact that something has to be sourced in the lede—regardless of whether it actually needs to be sourced—highlights a shortcoming of the article. If I were the primary editor of this article, I would simply added a short "sequel" section where the two sequels can be briefly discussed. Any necessary cites can go there and the lede can be left to do what it should: summarise the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

British-American

As you can see in the article history, I've reverted several recent attempts to change the nationality back to American only (while removing the sources used to reference the film as being a U.K. co-production). I don't particularly like having discussions about this sort of stuff at my own talk page, especially when I know this page is on many others watch list. It ends up in accusations of edit warring (as opposed to reverting in support of wiki policy and project guidelines) that I find really tiresome and disingenuous. So here I am bringing it up here, where it should be, for other editors to weigh in on, as it should be. Millahnna (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If the conversation is more suited to article talk, port the entire text to here. Einsteinbomb, use this article talk page to find a resolution to this disagreement. Reverting doesn't do a lick of good, and could bring a crapload of bad to you in the form of several lengthy blocks. Use talk, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really much in the way of conversation but here's the diff of me removing it in its entirety (editor used section headings that might muck up the flow here). It essentially amounts to "It is American because this company." "Take it to the article talk page. Also, you're removing sources that say otherwise." "It's American because other unnamed sources. I shall now lecture you on my cherry picking of your warning template." In my experience, once a problem editor hits that last beat, they've indicated that any further user talk page conversation is solely designed to get someone riled up. Millahnna (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has also been played out here where I have a link to a source of the co-production and explanation, which to me seems a reliable source. AbramTerger (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the term "British-American" because I think it implies a 50-50 collaboration. While there are British elements to the production, it is more American than British. If it is not American "enough", then we should identify all the American and British elements later in the lead section per MOS:FILM#Lead section. I prefer to write "English-language" because that's at least an indisputable cultural characteristic to have upfront. I don't know if the absence of that term is too indicative of systemic bias where we'd mention a country or a non-English language. EDIT: This article may be worth looking at, too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the European Lumiere project lists all three films of Nolan's Batman Trilogy "US / GB INC", and as it is explained that it means: "A film categorised as US / GB inc is a work produced entirely or partly in the United Kingdom where the main producer is a US-registered company acting through a UK-registered company established specifically for the production of the work." ["This marker - 'inc' - is a contraction of 'incoming investment'. An 'incoming investment' film is defined as one for which the main producer is a company established in a one country but under the ownership and/or control of a company registered in another country."] I think the compromise should be American-British film and in the infobox have US then UK. It is a partnership of the 2 countries, and partnerships may not be 50/50 but both are partners and help produce it. I think the lead and infobox should keep it simple with both. If more details on the partnership is needed (eg the percentage, etc), with proper citations it could be added to the production section. AbramTerger (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's open to interpretation whether it is "more American": the production company was British while the financier was American and it was filmed in both Britain and Chicago. Batman is obviously culturally American in the way James Bond is culturally British but at a production level that doesn't stop the James Bond films being British/American co-productions. The British/American Film Institutes label it a co-production between the two countries, and the European Audiovisual Observatory does likewise so the main sources seem pretty consistent in this regard. That said I question whether the nationality of the film is essential to its identity in this case: with the James Bond films we identify them as a "James Bond film" in the lede as opposed to a "British-American film"; I would say with most franchise films the franchise is the primary identifier. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What I've always hated about these discussions is that we're talking about identifying a film's "origin" based on who is putting up some money, and not based on who actually owns the property. When it comes to Batman, the property (comics and films) are owned, ultimately, by Warner Bros. (they also own DC Comics). No British company owns any part of Batman. If Warner Bros. wants to make a Batman film without any of those British studios, they can, because they own the rights completely. That should be how we determine country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Betty and Bignoile on this. The contributor, by edit-warring his pov edit, made it a lot easier to choose, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing it from the lead, but in the Template:Infobox film the "Country" is the "Country(s) of production". The template also specifically references the European Lumiere project when discussing the country. So in the infobox, both the UK and US should be listed, though based on the "US / GB inc" I would put US followed by the UK in the infobox. It really does not matter who owns "Batman", this article is about the film and who made the film, and this film (and the others in Nolan's Batman Trilogy) was produced by the US and UK, so I am not sure what the debate really is about. It is not about the opinions of editors, but about what the sources cited say. And it seems clear the sources indicate it is a joint production, so it seems relatively clear cut. Are there any reliable sources claiming it is entirely a US production? AbramTerger (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We really need better guidelines at WP:FILM, because it defies logic that any entity putting any investment into a film makes a movie with American producers, an American studio, an American distributor, and an American property part "British." I'm also getting concerned about the BFI's overarching tendency to call so many films "British" that no one else refers to that way. Unless we can find a consensus of other sources that Batman Begins is a "British" co-production, then it's merely a fringe claim. This isn't the first time the BFI has behaved this way. (In this case, I do see the European Lumiere project agrees with the BFI. But do others?)--Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Another point worth discussing is if the opening sentence's nationality should have to match the infobox's countries exactly. Here, we have "British-American" and "United States / United Kingdom". Are we ever able to do "American" and "United States / United Kingdom", implying that UK was a secondary party to the film's mostly-American production? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The American Film Institute agree with the BFI and the European Audio Visual Observatory so it's a bit more than a fringe claim. In this instance there does seem to be a consensus between the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okey-doke, then. Your research is always appreciated, Betty Logan! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand why we have a "Countries of production" field in the infobox in the first place (debate for the infobox page). That list is really only reflective of what the country of origin is for the studios that help finance the film. Thus, someone can just click that studios themselves and find out where they all originate. With regard to looking at films from a "who is producing it" instead of who "owns" it, then you're going to put yourself into a pickle when you start getting 3, 4, and more different countries helping to finance a film. You cannot be selective and say "just these, because they're bigger". No one wants to read, Batman Begins is an American/Swedish/German/British film. The only reason that this film is considered part British is because of Syncopy, and that studio is only there because it's Christopher Nolan's company, which always gets credit for any film he works on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What about doing something like bumping "British-American" to the second sentence of the lead section and appending "production" to that to emphasize that the pairing is production-driven and not culture-driven? And we wouldn't need to have a nationality tied to the film in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That might be a better solution (even in a general sense for all films).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestions, both. I'd simply add that, given that the primary company is Warner Bros., which owns the characters and is both a producer and the distributor, wouldn't American-British or, perhaps, US-UK, be a more accurate reflection? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that Erik. I know the country stuff can get really weird in our project (just thinking about the lengthy conversations going on about it in the five years I've been part of the project makes me glaze over a bit) and it seems to me cases like this are part of why. In truth I have no real stake in the country of origin issue on this page; I just came to it because of the removal of sources issue. But that seems like a sound way to better summarize the actual depth of involvement with each country. Millahnna (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a reliable source on whether the film is a "US / UK production" or a "UK / US production"? According to [European Lumiere project it a "US / GB inc" so the it seem it should be US followed by the UK in the infobox and American-British in the lead. While this review lists it as UK/US do we know if they are being alphabetical or just know it is joint and did not look into who was the major producer. Do they list ANY films as US/UK or do they only list films as UK/US no matter how much the relative involvement? Lumiere distinguishes it by the order and also includes other information (eg incoming investment where the main producer is a company established in a one country but under the ownership and/or control of a company registered in another country) in the listing as well. And Lumiere is specifically mentioned in the Template:Infobox film for the country. BFI only lists for particular films it it is not a database of information. It seems to me that lumiere is thus more general and is a reliable source to use as a reference and seems to be a better source than BFI.AbramTerger (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just that review: both the AFI and BFI show this as GB and US, in that order. These are both databases, and represent the national institutes of two major film producers. All entities will have different criteria as to which way round they place the countries, but if the AFI and BFI classify it the same way, I think it should be good enough for us. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But do they indicate which is the "Main Producer"? Lumiere indicates that "the main producer is a US-registered company acting through a UK-registered company established specifically for the production of the work." So while a joint production this reference indicates the main producer as the US. AFI seems to indicate all joint GB/US films as GB and US, they do not seem to differentiate between US/GB and GB/US which lumiere does. I could not find how BFI does it. I don't see how the lumiere reference is any less reliable than the others and is explicit in the ordering of the countries, while the others seem to have done it alphabetically. We should be using the source that is explicit in the indication and differentiates the main producer. AbramTerger (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"the others seem to have done it alphabetically." Just because you have not found out how the organisations order the production countries does not mean it's done alphabetically. I'm not sure why you are so keen to ignore the two national film institutes, just to put the US first. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Do either sources have any US/UK listed films or are all joint productions listed as UK/US or GB/US? I know that Lumiere lists them as appropriate. My goal is to have accurate information on WP. There are films that I have corrected with information the other way as appropriate or made citations when the producer is only 1 company.AbramTerger (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. - SchroCat (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is good to know, which means that there is not a disagreement between 2 reliable sources on who the main producer is. What is the WP guidelines for resolving the dispute when the facts are inconsistent. We shouldn't be ignoring a reliable source of information just because the facts are "inconvenient". How about keeping the British-American in the text and UK/US in the infobox(2: 1 - BFI + AFI > Lum) , but adding a note to the citation that indicates the sources vary on who the main producer is and then cite the 3 sources.AbramTerger (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think that's overkill, mostly because there is no one true defining criteria used by all parties. Different organisations will use differing measures, and I think we're getting in into the territory of angels dancing on the head of a pin if we start trying to list each and every different measure. Why, after all limit ourselves to including Lumiere? Why not TCM's measure, or IMDB, or Yahoo Movies, or the studio's own description, or any of the other "independent" databases that are out there? - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right about the overkill, but lumiere is different than the others as it is more about the money and less about the actors. It is also all of Europe and not primarily concerned with American or British films as AFI and BFI are about. Lumiere is also explicitly mentioned in the Template:infobox film for the country parameter, which to me gives is added "credibility". For me I will continue to use lumiere as the "std" for country production citation just as BoxOffice mojo seems to have become the std for grosses and budgets in the infobox, but I will consider the question settled on this film. Thanks for the discussion. Take care. AbramTerger (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Who on earth says that the "Country" field is about the money? Films are about a lot more than money—a hideously crass factor on it's own—and the criteria used by most organisations reflects a balance between money and involvement. I think having too much emphasis on one organisation to decide these things is wrong, and I will continue to use numerous sources to decide the production country question. I'll also add that the infobox template uses the Lumiere reference just says "its's difficult and isn't found on the original film". It doesn't say that we should use Lumiere, and adds no "credibility" to it's use. - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is about the country of the producing company and they are responsible for the money. But perhaps in this more globalization, this parameter is no longer useful. Locations, actors, companies, all come from all over the world from many countries. AbramTerger (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"It is about the country of the producing company" that's one criteria only. Personally I'll take what the template suggests as being the best sources: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film states "Country(s) of production". AbramTerger (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is different to what you're claiming. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Batman Based on

I reverted, a revert of my correction to the Template:Infobox film. The template goes with the film credits or the billing block information. Both list Bob Kane as creator of Batman. Other uncredited information belongs in the article with citations. The infobox is not the place for revisionism, it is the place to reflect the source material. AbramTerger (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in the edit summary, Bill Finger is credited at Batman. He is a verifiable creator of Batman, and Wikipedia deals in verifiable content. For the most part, the official contributions and the verifiable contributions are the same, but in this case, we have a divergence. I agree that we should not engage in revisionism, which is exclusion of Finger's crediting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it required consensus to correct information that is inconsistent with the film and the billing block of the film, especially information that is uncited. And it seems to me your reverting is perpetrating "revisionism" (this is similar to what has been done on the Terminator page where people want to add a credit based on credit to Harlan Ellison). Template:Infobox film seems clear, to me that the credits should reflect the source. Any misinformation in the source should be dealt with in the article with citations. I see no mention in the film's article about a "mistaken credit" or that the credit is corrected in other films (and from what I can tell, the other films in the trilogy have a similar credit to just Kane). The article is the place for this type of information, not the infobox. If Bill Finger is a creator of Batman why isn't he listed in the credits? Has he won lawsuits establishing his right to a credit? And if he has not, he should NOT be listed as having a credit. But in any case, that information should be in the article, not placed in the infobox as a revision to the official credits. Even name changes in wikipedia are to be kept as credited without any revisionism. Could you please cite the policy where the infobox information should be revised to NOT reflect the film and/or billing block credits so that I may review. Otherwise please refrain from reverting information that is given in both the film and the poster billing block. AbramTerger (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Batman is a Featured Article, and while Kane is the only person legally recognized as the creator, Wikipedia verifiably identifies both Kane and Finger. If we only state Kane here, we are being inconsistent. Are we okay with that? The infobox is only based on official credits out of convenience. Even if a crew member fought not to be officially credited because of whatever happened with a film, we would still identify that person's role. The inverse would be true; if screenwriters were blacklisted and not given the official credit, we can verify their involvement (e.g., Dalton Trumbo and Spartacus). What we could do here is to have a note that can explain either outcome. If we have only Kane, the note can explain Kane and Finger being commonly recognized as co-creators with Finger not being credited, with an anchor link to Batman. If we have both Kane and Finger, the note can explain that Warner Bros. only credited Kane for Batman. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But the issues with blacklisting are not the same. Many of those films have had their credits revised and corrected upon reissues, and as editors we can accept the new corrected credits and comment on the original incorrect credits in the article. The issue with the creation of Batman seems more akin to the claims on The Terminator page that want to add a based on credit to a Harlan Ellison story. But even though we can cite the claims, mention the settlement, and even examine current film versions with the added credit the company was legally forced to include ("Acknowledgement to the works of HARLAN ELLISON"), the film still does NOT include a "based on" credit. Or possibly akin to an "acknowledged contributor" to a screenplay (like Robert Towne in The Godfather who still did not deserve a screenplay credit or academy award for it. Kane died in 1998 so any citation from him is dated before the 2005 release of this film. So it seems odd to claim that the credits in this film are incorrect like in Spartacus and suggest that in future versions the credits could be corrected. The 2 later films in the trilogy contain the same credit to only Kane, and I suspect that the future Batman / Superman film will only credit Kane as well. So it seems a major case of Revisionism to deny the credits of the Primary Source to meet some agenda to give someone unearned credit. Contributing to the creation is not the same as being the creator. A couple may acknowledge the contribution a friend made to get them to meet and marry, but that does not make the friend a creator of any child they conceive. You would have a point for this film, if one of the later films gave dual credit for the creator of Batman, but so far, it seems there are editors ignoring the source material. AbramTerger (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I admit I was not sure about the blacklisting; regarding Spartacus, I did not see mention of officially crediting Trumbo other than Douglas publicly announcing that Trumbo was the screenwriter. But what about the situations where a crew member wants to disassociate from the film? Would we exclude the person from being mentioned in the infobox due to the primary source even though secondary sources indicate otherwise? The infobox is not directly based on official credits. The "Based on" field is not supposed to be directly related to the official crediting, but more often than not, it's naturally going to match up. However, per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." If secondary sources give due weight to Kane and Finger being Batman's co-creators, then why shouldn't these secondary sources carry over here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a different situation to the blacklisted writers because the WGA has restored the legal credit in many cases for blacklisted writers; even though the names may not actually appear on the print they now have the official credit. I don't have much to offer on the debate about Bill Finger's role as co-author, but he certainly wasn't given a credit for Batman begins: the Writers Guild of America awarded Goyer and Nolan the screen credit, and gave Bob Kane a credit for the characters. The infobox records credits as much as authorship, so if Finger is to be retained it should be clear he didn't receive a credit. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless the sec and/or tertiary sources indicate that the primary source is inaccurate, they should not carry any more weight. All 3 Batman films in the trilogy credit only Kane and thus as mentioned all post-date Kane's claim of contribution of Finger. If the secondary claims were valid, why hasn't the later films had the additional credit? What is the latest citation? Are there citations on the subject that post-date 2012? Has there been a legal fight and what is the outcome? Just contributing to the creation does automatically grant creation credit. The infobox is for the film's credits as given. The WP:PSTS refers to comments about the article not about a summary information about the source. If someone pulls their own credit or puts in a pseudonym, the credited names as listed are still used, though the link can be the real name. In production you could discuss the background, the infobox does not seem to be the place to add-on credits based on the opinions of some people. As Betty mentions the WGA is the arbiter of these credits. Betty, I disagree that the infobox is a place for uncredited people (unless it is an older film where no onscreen has been given at all, and it is cited). It is not just Batman Begins where Finger is not credited, he is not credited for any Dark Knight films and also does not appear to be credited in Batman vs Superman set for next year. If Finger's credit does not seem to be missed due to an "oversight" in this film, since it carries over to other films. Finger has not been awarded a credit since for whatever reasons, he has not earned it, which just suggests his contribution was not enough to warrant it. That happens with many films as well. People direct some portions, write parts of a screenplay, etc, but if it is not credited, it does not belong in the infobox, which should reflect accurate information about the film. The best place for the citations would be in the link from the based on credit to indicate and cite Finger's contribution. But it seems irrelevant to this film as both Finger and Kane were not alive when it was being made, and the film article should not be about the creation of the Batman comic, but deal with information about the film. AbramTerger (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the infobox has to report only the official credits? The infobox can report the roles where they are verifiable, which was why I pointed to WP:PSTS. The pseudonym case is a good example of how we would not simply use the credits as they are reported. Looking at the Alan Smithee examples, many articles state the actual director and have a notation that the person was credited as Alan Smithee. We report the names based on reality as we can verify it. I'm sure that Finger will never be legally recognized as a co-creator of Batman, but he is verifiably recognized as such. The infobox does not belong to the studios and legal papers, the infobox belongs to reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to add a citation in the infobox that indicates he has some right to being credited. But if you don't believe he is ever going to get that right why insist on this revisionism, I just don't understand the thought process. I think instead of adding an uncredited reference to every Batman movie, comic, etc that seems to me to be in dispute (it seems not be clear cut on whether he is or is not a creator: there are citations which say they believe he is Finger is but imdb and TCM indicate only Kane as does the film and poster, which suggests that the other sources have no strong claim behind them). [And where are the citations to the legal battles to try and get Finger's credit restored, if he has a right to it? As mentioned, with the Terminator even though Ellison won the case, he still did not earn "based on credit", just cash and an Acknowledgment of his works in the film...] I think a good compromise is to remove the "Created by" credit from the infobox altogether. I have never been that happy with using the "based on" location to add a "created by" credit when there is no real place for it in the infobox. Instead I would add the based on credit from the film, which I do not think has any dispute to it. The film lists: "Based upon characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", So a simple based on "Batman by DC Comics" should solve the dispute. It is accurate, reflects what is in the film and anyone going to the link could look at who created Batman (which could have a section on the dispute of the creation) and also all the other writers and inkers who helped make him become who he is. There really is no need in the infobox for the "created by" credit: the infobox is not meant to be a storage location for all credits. It seems to me to make more sense than trying to force in multiple locations an uncredited name that is in dispute. This discussion could be repeated anywhere Kane has gotten credit for Creating Batman. AbramTerger (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't use the wikia IMDb as a reference site, though TCM is WP:RS.

As for the infobox, I think we need to list simply what the movie itself says, so that we don't mislead people into thinking the movie credited Finger. However, why don't we add one of those "n"-type footnotes saying something like, "Though Kane is contractually the only credited creator, numerous historians have ascertained that Bill Finger is the uncredited co-creator of Batman." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On a side note we do generally make an exception for writing credits on IMDB when they are explicitly provided by the Writers Guild because they are not user edited (see WP:CITINGIMDB). Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this create many issues. This film and other comic-based films, use characters from that universe (hence the generic credit

"Based upon characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", it does not just have to be Batman comics...). What about someone wanted to add a citation for the creators of characters other than Batman: the riddler, catwoman, the joker, the scarecrow, Robin, etc. Frank Miller's contribution to the character is also well documented as well. Do we include him in the citations? The article should be about the film. The history of the Batman universe and ALL the talented creators of the various parts can't shoved into the infobox and I don't thing we should try doing it. On some level I think it is akin to an Academy award. One can find citations from experts who will claim someone other than the winner deserved to win. It can happen right after and even years later. But it does not matter about those opinions, even though cited and there could even be a consensus opinion of editors here that the one who didn't win deserved to. it does not alter the objective fact, that the other actor won and it is not our place as editors in these to include the subjective opinions otf those who disagree with the objective facts. I think we should either just put the based on "Batman by DC Comics" to avoid the dispute or live with what other sources do and just include Bob Kane. [Note both IMDB and TCM will list many, many uncredited writers, producers, actors, etc in their listings, but neither lists Finger]. Since this involves more than this film (it involves the Nolan trilogy, the earlier Batman films, and even the TV series), should this discussion be moved to a more general place, not just the batman begins site?]. I think it ultimately involves a bigger question of when the wiki sites should be ignoring objective facts in favor of opinions (albeit the the cited opinions of experts).] AbramTerger (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO a different citation needs to be found for this note. The citation posted for FINGER does not seem relevant to the discussion for credits on this film. This film post-dates that reference as do the other films in the series which do not have the credit. It seems akin to adding an uncredited director to a film posting a link to a pre-production announcement of that director, or adding a fired director to the director credits. The citation seems only an opinion (albeit an expert opinion): we don't add Taxi Driver (for example) to the Oscar win for Rocky just because we have citations from film experts who in their opinion believe Taxi Driver deserved to win. Life is not fair, even people who may deserve credit do not always earn the credit. The citation also does not mention this film, nor does it indicate why the estate desired to NOT have Finger given a credit in the film (or it seems any of the BATMAN entries), or if it were a mistake/oversight why it was not corrected in the DVD releases or in the future films in the series. A citation is needed to indicate why Finger deserves to be credited for Batman Begins, which that citation does not indicate. Now, if there is some pending litigation about the issue that could be cited, IMO the movie as credited should be used until the outcome of the litigation is finalized and then adapt the infobox based on the outcome. Even a positive outcome may not grant the right (As mentioned earlier, Ellison won his lawsuit against the TERMINATOR film but did not get the "Based on" credit he claimed). Thus with he citation listed the credit does not seem deserved or is, at best, premature.AbramTerger (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking is not a citation. Also 1989 comments from Kane pre-date the films even more than Goulart's comments (part of Goulart's comments probably stem from Kane's remarks) which still raise the questions of why you need to find the citations related to the films and why they have not yet been corrected or why the estate does not want Finger to have credit in the films. It is important to note, however (which may be why you have problems finding applicable citations, and why other sources are in dispute his being included) that even Kane mentioning Finger as a "a contributing force" does not mean he deserves credit. Robert Towne had major uncredited contributions to several screenplays. Coppola even acknowledged him during his acceptance speech for Adapted screenplay for the Godfather. But even though he was a contributor does not mean we cite this and add Towne to the screenplay for this film and add him as getting to the page about oscars for this screenplay. It is not our job as editors to fill the pages with people's opinions on what they deserve. We are supposed to deal with the facts presented to us.AbramTerger (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the based-on parameter to use the note approach that Tenebrae suggested. It is treated more of an aside here. I don't endorse fully excluding Finger, but I am stepping away from this topic now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise, though I think a larger group may need to be consulted. The dispute we have is that we are trying to force the "Batman created by" credit into the "based on" spot in the template, instead of just using the actual "based on" credit given in the film. In some previous incarnations of Batman, Kane was given "based on" credit, but in this trilogy, he was not given "based on" credit. Can we solve the problem, by just using the based on credit in the film and ignoring the "created by" credit (which really is not a parameter for the film infobox anyway).AbramTerger (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am coming around to the idea of having "Batman by D.C. Comics" or whatever. There are two ways of looking at it: if we are solely representing the legal credit then it should be Bob Kane alone, but if we are also representing authorship then many other people such as Frank Miller have contributed to Batman down the years. Is there any more Bob Kane or Bill Finger than Frank Miller in these films? It's not like Harry Potter or James Bond where the source material has a sole author. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is part of my point. In addition to Kane, Finger, Miller, there is also the creator of the Ra's al Ghul character who has a role in this film. I think DC has modified its credit to reflect the reality that it was more a collection of talent. If we link the Batman page and the DC page, the history can be obtained if desired and even any "controversy" on the creator(s). Doing this also more accurately reflects what the "based on" credit is in the film. The screen indicates: "Based upon characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics" followed by "Batman Created by Bob Kane" [I believe that DC has a legal obligation to explicitly acknowledge Kane, Wiki does not, the infobox is a summary not a place for all credits in the film, the created by is not one of the parameters that film infobox summarizes.] Note also that James Bond has had new authors in the books to continue the series. But it remains "Ian Fleming's James Bond". AbramTerger (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed the Based on to reflect better the credit in the film: "Based upon characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics". This is more accurate, eliminates the forcing of a "created by" credit that is not a parameter in the Template:Infobox film and eliminates completely the disputed material about Finger and the requirement for the "note".AbramTerger (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good solution, AbramTerger. As much as I'd like to see Bill Finger get his due, the article needs to reflect what appears in the film. Euchrid (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for the comments. For there is a question about Finger is what is his "due" and there seems to be confusion about it, in some of the articles. From my reading, Kane created Batman before Finger got involved, but Finger helped a great deal in the development of Batman, Bruce Wayne, the villains and what became the start of the Batman Universe. What Finger did not get credit for was his writing of Batman during his career (which was standard practice: only the creator got a byline, the rest of the people were essentially treated as "hired help". Finger did not get the credit he deserved until after he retired when the comics were reprinted and full credits were added. But his credit is as a writer of the comics (just like many others like Frank Miller), but not as a creator of Batman. It seems to me to be akin to story and screenplay credit for a film. It is like Kane has the "story credit" and both have "screenplay" (and now others get some screenplay credit). DC seems to have moved away from Batman being "based on" Kane's Batman, since the current "batman universe" is the work of many many artists, so it is now just based on the DC comics, but they still give Kane the "created by" he deserves. AbramTerger (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars

I have again rounded the Box Office dollars per MOS:LARGENUM. If there are reasons for us to NOT use the established WP style, let's discuss and come to a consensus about the reasons for the deviation. Styles are established to try and maintain consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with rounding box office figures per the guidelines since the full figures are not important to understanding the topic. FlawlessViper, while film articles have reported the full figures for a long time, it makes sense to round the figures to the most relevant place. In the case of this film, it is not of any value to state that $18,673 was made in addition to the $374.2 million. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Shot in Iceland?

Intro says "primarily shot in Iceland and Chicago". Seems like vandalism to me - some earlier versions have stated Ireland and England instead of Iceland, but I can't locate when it changed, nor verify this fact either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.205.110 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Batman Begins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091014103001/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151857341.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151857341.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not Batman 5

When I type in Batman 5 it directs here.

Such redirection should be disabled since Batman Begins is in no way Batman 5 as it is the first movie in a film series that is distinct to the previous four Batman movies.

In fact this numbering of Batman movies does not include the 1966 Batman movie. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)