Talk:The Dark Knight

Heads-up on including new information

As with any other article on Wikipedia, The Dark Knight should have a high standard of verifiability. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be a reliable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous -- the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

UK release date

I saw it advitised for the 24th? So i suggest it get's changed to the 24th on the wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulV15590 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The previews are 23rd, the official release date has been moved to 24th. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Aren't we holding off on the RT link until closer to the release? I see it's been added again but I didn't want to pull it without discussion. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm surprised there's no mention about it getting 100% 80.41.187.15 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer both questions, I don't think we should mention the score yet because there simply aren't enough reviews (15 currently) to provide an accurate score, statistically speaking. On the other hand, the Rotten Tomatoes external link is still useful for providing access to those reviews, as we only cite a few of them directly in the article. Steve ^{T • C} 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hold off. Only real big-time critics got to see it so far, so it's not exactly accurate yet.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The RT cite suggests otherwise. 24 reviews, and a nice spread of critics. Time to unveil the stats, I reckon. Some of the reviews in the article could perhaps do with replacing with ones from more mainstream critics too, for a fully fleshed-out reception section. I've been holding off doing the latter because I didn't want to tread on the toes of the article's main contributors; I've added virtually nothing to the article content and they might have different ideas on how to construct the section. But I'll go ahead and stick the RT statistics in for now. Steve ^{T • C} 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No Cell Phones Allowed?

I heard that some movie theatres arn't allowing people bring in cell phones with them to the dark knight? I heard it on the radio but the only ref I could find was for a USC screening...can anyone prove this with a AMC or National Amusements movie theatre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.145.2 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Isn't this on a theater-by-theater basis rather than for only one film? Gary King (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I work for the Regal Entertainment Group (biggest theatre chain) and I haven't heard of a cellphone ban in place for this movie. It's probably a local thing for an independant chain. Aml830 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a really stupid idea. How much video can you capture even on the best of phones? I'm guessing not more than 10 minutes. And who'd really want to capture a video on a phone, anyway, with all the jiggling and the horrible sound? Not to mention that holding up a phone, with its bright lights, is not very discreet. --24.10.63.237 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception intro

ThuranX has removed the following information from the reception section:

The Dark Knight has received generally favorable reviews from film critics, with a general consensus forming that it succeeds not only as a comic book adaptation, but also as a "thrilling" and complex crime saga. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 88% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, with an average score of 7.8/10, based upon a sample of 24 reviews. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 74, based on seven reviews.

I'm not about to revert ThuranX; he/she cites a consensus to keep this out until the film is released. But to be honest, I can't see that in the above conversations. I thought we were just keeping it out until it contained enough information to be statistically useful (which at that time it didn't, but at the current number of reviews, I believe is). Thoughts, opinions, and theses below, please. Steve ^{T • C} 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve; I think the 100% "bubble" has finally been punctured (almost always happens with these films). Obviously, RT and MC will continue shifting as more and more reviews come out, but I think that the statistics are meaningful now. My impression was that we kept out the information initially because we knew it would not stay at 100% with only a handful. 88% is a more realistic number, even though it may go up or down. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, didnt' even see this (a notice would've been nice, Steve, but no biggie), and I"m not opposing it, but it seemed for a whiel we were trying to keep it out. Just a few horus till it's atotally moot point anyway. ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek

Detailed interview with Christopher Nolan. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"See below"

"..as well as to the memory of technician Conway Wickliffe, who was killed during a car accident while preparing one of the film's stunts (see below)."

I clicked that "See Below" part, but didn't seem to be redirected anywhere that had anything to do with Conway. Shouldn't we fix this? --81.156.26.22 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me in both Firefox 3 and IE7. But there's no real reason for it; I'll reword accordingly. Steve ^{T • C} 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Strange, clicking it works for me. It moves me down to the third paragraph in the "Filming" subsection. If this does not work for me, it may be a matter of settings. Perhaps we should remove "(see below)" entirely, since I added the coding with the opinion that the phrase was too vague for such a long article beneath it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you removed it; it should not have been in the article to begin with. Rarely, if ever, should "self-aware" (not sure how else to say it) phrases be used. For instance, if someone only printed the first page of an article and it said "see below", then it would not make much sense. It's just like saying "See this article" (where it links to another article.) Once it gets printed, it won't make much sense, and Wikipedia articles definitely appear in many, many different mediums and it should adapt to all of them. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good reasoning. I suppose I implemented the coding because I didn't want to make a major edit during that particular time frame (an uncomfortable editing atmosphere). Looks like the article does fine without it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we set it up so that earlier mention is itself the link to the later section? that would avoid the self-aware problem.ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but it's probably unnecessary in the long run; I think both sections have enough context to work alone. But if other editors agree, I'll sway with the majority. Incidentally, would you mind chipping in your thoughts above? Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and GA Nomination

Do you think this article is up for a Good Article Nomination?

and also, the critical reception section is all completely positive reviews. I'm pretty sure there weren't ANY bad reviews for this film, but if there is a single one, it should be listed if it's by a credible source because it seems rather baised. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the reception section should be fleshed out a little more, but I don't think the article is ready for GA yet, purely due to the requirement for stability. As the film is released, more and more information is going to be added to it (plot, box office, more reviews and general criticism, awards). I'd wait until it's been out a little while before nominating. Steve ^{T • C} 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking that we should rewrite the article in the sense of re-organizing the content to flow better. When we slowly build up an article, I think we tend to be painfully chronological and specific. We could probably write a better overview, and we could probably find citations that cover more detail better (as it happens leading up to a film's release). Let's definitely not rush into pursuing a GA nomination just yet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

This section needs work. Why do they read like advertisements for the film? "twisted, tortured, terrifying -- and terrific." "the Unforgiven of superhero movies." That's mainly from the New York Daily News one, but the others seem to be a bit too heavily quoted. We should be paraphrasing what they are saying, and focusing on their analysis of the film and not just their appraisal or disapproval. Generally, when you write about what they thought of the film analytically, their opinion of the film is clear. Listing the star rating...it's just extraneous information, especially if you're doing a good job of paraphrasing their opinion of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It does needs some work. I've been holding off on any major changes because I didn't want to step on your and the other regular contributors' toes (you might have different plans to what I normally come up with). But if you want me to have a quick punt at it, I could probably throw something together later. Steve ^{T • C} 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of my thing too, only, I didn't want to make any major changes until the film was released and we had enough reviews available to have a comprehensive section (that, and I wanted to see the film first). Maybe we should go ahead and clean it all up - better to have it straight now, then have more work later?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing that's bugging me is the repeated Peter Travers references. Is he the only respected reviewer? --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a run at the first real critics para in the reception. I pushed for balancing them, and avoiding repetition; tow talk about the frenetic pace, so I used one for that, and the other for the execution of the themes. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is a lot better than it was this morning (well, I would!), but it was a bit of a rush job so there's probably some bloat in the wording we can get rid of. What we need to be careful of, however, is recasting the sentences so they stray from the points the reviewers made. It's a fine line to walk. Steve ^{T • C} 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility on splitting that one quote. As for the 'while', I really think it belongs in front. Not only does it indicate contrast in that para ,but it demonstrates and sets a goal of balance throughout the section, in keeping with NPOV. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeelll, I still don't like that "while". It feels unnecessary. Read the whole sentence aloud; it's cumbersome without being split properly in two. Shorter sentences are better for clarity. But, consensus and all that, so if you two want it in, I'll not quibble over one word. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of writing styles, I think. If you can set it up so it's still tight and clearly contrasting, then make it two sentences. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but if there isn't a way, I'll leave it be. Incidentally, any particular reason we lost Ansen's "unyielding intensity... occasionally overwhelming" bit, leaving only his praise? Steve ^{T • C} 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seemed to overlap with the other guy's talking about the fast pacing and such; maybe you could rearrange ot open with 'ansen agrees about the pace ,and blah blah blah' ? ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK, just wondering is all. Steve ^{T • C} 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Peter Travers? Admittedly, had I been writing the section from scratch, I almost certainly wouldn't have chosen to cite him, but as he was already in the section when I rewrote it this afternoon (UK), I thought I might as well use what we had. Plus, I didn't want the previous contributors to the section to feel I was running roughshod over all their hard work by removing everything. Steve ^{T • C} 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I reduced him a bit to assuage the concerns of that editor, but i find nothign wrong with using him. I think that because the reception is written as story, then actors, then technical or whatever the categories, some repetition of names is needed. It's fine with me. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Travers is often one of the most quoted critics in movie advertisements. This can be a bad thing (http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2382). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.135.58 (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're on this, the section is written in the present tense. Now, I know NYScholar said that this is standard practise in works of criticism, but I (and I suspect most of us) generally do them in the past tense. I'm happy to leave it in the present tense, but I just thought I'd throw the question out there to gauge opinion. The only potential problem I can see is if one of the critics we cite reappraises the film at some point in the future, maybe when it's out on DVD, and comes to an altogether different conclusion as to the film's level of awesome. That reappraisal is ideal for our purposes, but might not work if we keep it all in the present tense, if you see what I mean. Ah well, maybe we should just cross that bridge when we come to it.. Steve ^{T • C} 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Joker

The character bio for this character seems more like a strange epitath for Heath Ledger. I would like to see a little more about the character, not the actor. Seanpnoot (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be because they aren't "character bios". The information present is based on an out-of-universe perspective, and it's also based on what information is available. We cannot invent information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, a lot of what we have is specifically about Ledger's approach to and interpretation of the Joker. Thus, he's prominently featured in that section. ThuranX (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The part detailing Ledger's preparation for the role needs to be at least reorganized; it's bordering on plagiarism from IMDb. Jamie1743 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception

This section reads like a complete mishmash; there's no coherence tying it together. It also quotes the same four reviewers (Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy) almost incestuously. We're introduced to their opinions in the second paragraph, and then treated to them all over again in every paragraph thereafter. This section is badly in need of (1) more diversity among cited critics, (2) more concise summaries of their reviews, and (3) greater synthesis of their respective opinions.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reviewers are interwoven because otherwise it's going to be a listy setup of each reviewer's opinion, awkwardly collapsed into prose. Also, we can't synthesize. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There has to be some logical structure to the section (i.e., whether it be dealing with positive reviews first, then negative reviews, or something else); otherwise, it's all over the place. Also, there needs to be a broader range of critical opinions discussed. Right now, instead of having a good idea of how the film has been received by the critical community at large, we're treated to a tedious cut and paste job from reviews by Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy. It's as if there's a contest to see how many times the names of those four critics can be mentioned in the same section. Other critics have reviewed the film and formed their own opinions. We should hear them. Finally, the cites and quotes need to be much more succinct. The idea is to give a general idea of how the critic in question views the film, not to provide a play-by-play, detail-by-detail blow of his published review. In the time it takes to read and make sense of this section, one could read the primary sources instead.-PassionoftheDamon (talk)

The structure I was attempting to go for, which I admit may not have been wholly successful, was firstly a paragraph discussing the script, themes and structure, then the acting/characters (which seem to have received the most column-inches in the reviews I've read, for obvious reasons), then the filmmaking craft in general, then a brief overview/conclusion from each reviewer. However, I'll see if I can weave in the review you added in a couple of places, using something other than the shorthand quotes. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do only what you think works. I'm not nearly inclined to make a big thing about one little review. I just found the Unforgiven comparison elucidative. You've obviously put a lot of thought and work into this article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree! I don't own anything on this page (indeed, the only section that can be said to have been written by me anyway is the reception section; others have put far more time and effort into the article). Steve ^{T • C} 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the structure Steve intended, and I kind of like it, as it presents the reviews as they relate to various aspects, aspects noted in multiple reviews. Otherwise, you get a he said/he said across the board each time, with no close balancing for each section. If four of four quoted reviewers praise the plot, that should go together. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Erik says, while I wouldn't ordinarily have a problem with the review you're trying to add (the review itself, rather than the way it's been farmed for a couple of context-free quotes, that is), one of the other reasons I eliminated it is because I didn't want the section to become unbalanced in its praise for the film. However, this is, as all things are on Wikipedia, a work in progress, and I can't see the harm in a couple more reviewers in the section in place of one or more comments from the ones we have at present. Any more than that and we're in trouble: a section that's too long, or a section that's full of one-line appraisals with no depth. It's one of the reasons we provide the link to the film's Rotten Tomatoes page at the bottom of the article: it provides access to all the reviews we simply haven't the space to include. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I have to say that I think your fears about the section becoming unbalanced in its praise for the film are unfounded. The duty here is not to be "balanced" with respect to the positive and negative reviews of the film, but to provide a snapshot of how the film has generally been received. If the film has been overwhelmingly positively received, as it has to this point (according to Metacritic, it's been given "universal acclaim"), then that's the picture we have to paint. Of course, we shouldn't sweep the negative reviews under the rug (e.g., Edelstein's New York Magazine review and Denby's New Yorker review), but neither should we pretend, for the sake of "balance," that the film has been received, on the whole, ambivalently. I don't agree with suppressing positive reviews for the sake of maintaining the pretense of a balance of opinion that does not actually exist. However, I do wholeheartedly agree with your concerns about the growing length of this section.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Passion. Use caution with respect to editing your comments once they're posted as it may make the responses below confusing or the thread as a whole hard to follow. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of what balance of reviews to cite is only a recent one I've considered. Until recently, I favoured reception sections that reflected more or less the consensus of opinion towards the film. I wrote this early version of the Hancock critical reaction section with that in mind (and intending to add more, mostly negative reviews in the same manner). After concerns raised by another editor, and subsequent discussion on that article's talk page, it was decided to balance the reviews up a little more to present a neutral point of view, so I rewrote it in the style you've come across at this article. It still skews slightly towards the negative, intentionally, but presents a fairer picture. The episode actually led to a rewrite of the film style guideline on reception sections, for which there was a consensus in favour. But any further input on how we should do this will be appreciated both here and at WT:MOSFILM. However, I do agree that the current version of the Dark Knight reception section isn't quite as successful at coherently separating the various filmmaking disciplines as the Hancock one is. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby. And, I'm sorry, but speaking not specifically about this film but in general, Peter Travers is not a critic we should be using, when so many others are better and more insightful writers, like Anthony Lane at The New Yorker, A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Maitland McDonagh of, all places, TVGuide.com. Travers is the single biggest quote-whore whom publicists go to get some asinine quotes for their ads. Go to your local paper and see if I'm wrong. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And as I've just seen, by coincidence, McDonagh is the first review at | RottenTomatoes: The Dark Knight]. (And she's quite a tomato herself, I've just seen.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

really? Sexism's the best you can do for why we should include her? cause she's hot? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an offhand comment playing off "tomato," for goodness' sake. And don't diss her if you haven't read her, or one of her several books.--151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's a bitter failed film critic. That's all your POV. Perhaps it's the inverse, that his writing style's so easy to read that people like quoting him? And you're more than welcome to link to those other reviewers or just add the material your self. If you can type one paragraph here, you can type in the article too. So tired of seeing peopel bitch without trying to fix things when they claim to know how. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Peter, stop. The Reception area is already very long, and I don't want to get in the middle of a bunch of Bat-fans. No, I'm not now nor have I ever been or wanted to be a film critic. But I've found that people attack the person when they can't really attack the argument. You know, "easy to read" isn't the point -- they're not quoting his "easy to read" negative reviews, because there hardly are any! Walter Monheit lives! [1] (Spy magazine reference. Those who remember Spy will get it.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything in there that's not trolling personal attacks on the rest of the editors here? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call "Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby" a "trolling personal attack" unless you're Travers or Denby. And I have nothing against Denby. Travers is a joke to everyone in New York. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Monheit? Talk about puffery! --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Jeez louise, could you folk be encouraged to pipe down? Thuran, youve been here well past long enough to know better how to react to people. That people have to keep mentioning this to you means one of two things: either you are are choosing to attack the same sorts of people, or the problem resides solely with you. Be civil or begone. Everyone else, stop baiting him simply because he's an easy target. Focus on the edits and not the editor.
The problem I see with the current (as of this posting) review section is that Travers' name is at the beginning of every section. This seems to ascribe the most notable criticisms to him, which of course presents an undue weight problem. there are dozens of professional reviews for the film available, and neither Travers nor anyone else should be commanding top billing for more than one paragraph.
I understand what Steve was trying to do, and its a good approach to address the points that all the reviewers tend to commonly note. However, varying when the reviewers are mentioned might remove the visual similarities that inspire the undue concerns. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot

AM I the only one that notices that the plot does not make sense --Supermike (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No you're not...I've seen The Dark Knight, and aside from how good it is that plot summary is WAY oversimplified, ignores 3/4s of the movie and needs to be completely deleted and started again. Unfortunately, I can't remember enough of the movie to write a decent plot summary. But it definately needs work, as it does not do the Nolan script justice. I can appreciate it will be changed within the next few days though.--Dezza91 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the current plot/premise section is a hideous mess of bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as being totally devoid of paragraphs Greebowarrior (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the previous premise for now. Since the film is commercially released tomorrow, its plot should be verifiable by a sufficient number of people for adequate peer review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia has it already, doesn't it? So, while it may not be to English-speaking Earthicans, it is verifiable to Australian editors. Steve ^{T • C} 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right... I guess I have my eye on this Friday. Even so, I don't want to be spoiled by the Plot section, so hopefully one of the regulars can see it and maintain the section accordingly. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about "Batman speeds off to save Rachel" "Batman arrives and rescues Dent (but expecting Rachael)." Is this correct? I thought it was unclear in the movie if the Joker had switched the addresses, or if Batman had changed his mind and chosen to save Dent. Since the importance of saving Dent is a major theme of the movie, and since a switch by the Joker was never mentioned, I thought this was ambiguous. Anyone have any evidence one way or the other? --Camipco (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman was NOT expecting Rachel -- he tells Two-Face at the end that he had chosen him! Did the person who write this plot even watch the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.75.49 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have YOU seen the movie?? Ive seen it twice already and Batman WAS expecting Rachel, he makes that very clear before he takes off, only to find Dent at the address he was given by the Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving update

I initially moved a lot of pre-July 13 discussions to Archive 6, but the KB size was too staggering. I moved it again to Archive 7 (now called "July 2008, Part 1" and very full at that), and if we do any additional archiving in the course of the month, it should be moved to Archive 8, "July 2008, Part 2". If anyone has a better suggestion for archiving discussions, feel free to say so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"future film"

Don't keep re adding the future film tag, it's been out since midnight two days ago. JayKeaton (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no-one keeps re-adding anything. As far as I'm aware, you're the first to remove it. Steve ^{T • C} 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New reviews

Thought you good folk would like a link to the WGN review of TDK, located here. I am unsure as to the rules about including video of broadcast, as the print version or transcript isn't available. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

'Course, there is this one, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the Dean Richards review to Reception. As the transcript of the boradcast wasn't available, I emailed Richards for a copy of the script script, checked it against the video (located here), and posted some points from it, using the cite video template (couldn't find one for a news broadcast). I've copied the transcript of the email (sans contact info) on a subpage here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article review

I propose an article review following the film's opening weekend so we can improve the format and the flow of the article. Since I imagine that the comprehensive nature of this article will possibly put it in the Good Article spotlight like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (both which Alientraveller was a key contributor -- nice job!). Considering that there is a bombardment of coverage for this film in the month of its release, it may be worth looking for recent sources. Not only could they have new information, they could also report older information, permitting us to consolidate citations (badly needed, with 120+ of them in the article). We could do some brainstorming and list points to address in the article, tackling the oft-mentioned ones. I think we can agree that this is going to be a pretty big film, and Wikipedia should have a solid article covering it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've compiled some sources from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Reuters, and Sci Fi Wire. Feel free to utilize them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that Michael Caine created a backstory for his character. MTV reports this, but I'm pretty positive Caine has mentioned this a couple of times in other sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's in the first film's article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright... I guess the backstory seemed new to me. :) I guess we'll leave it to readers to visit the first film's article or the "Films" section of the character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

American Cinematographer

• Batman Looms Larger —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an incredibly useful article! There is a lot of content in there that could definitely serve as critical commentary to include screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

Lets not edit war over this. Unfortunately, this plot section will probably need to be at least a bit longer than most, since the film is longer and fairly complex for one of its length. rootology (T) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that with the influx of editors who tend to edit the Plot section, it may be best to be somewhat hands-off until the activity dies down. Eventually, we'll be able to formulate a stable Plot section. Just not this weekend... or the next? :) (By the way, to start a new discussion on a talk page, click "new section" at the top. When you edit the last section, it looks like you're potentially leaving a comment there instead of starting a new section. Just giving a heads-up!) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing it at midnight tonight and when I return I'll most likely be trimming this (currently) 1408 word plot down quite a bit. I have no doubt there are a lot of extraneous details in this section at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are, but I was thinking more like Erik in that The Big Bag O' Crazy™ is about to be upended on this article, and it might be best to step back, not get splashed by the ensuing editorial cannonballs, and await 'til they get tired. Maybe that's bad faith, I don't know. I'll sandbox a trimmed plot and provide a link to it here, so folk can check it out. I've seen the film already, so I think I can get the process started. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And a revised (and subsequently added) plot synopsis can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...and its grown again. :) I like the suggestion above of not duking it out for the opening weekend, since this appears to be massively popular and in the media--every major pruning will just grow right back. As an aside (I've seen the film), Dark Knight is so dense I don't know how short this can be really stripped down still without skipping over many major story aspects. The story is at least (maybe more) dense than the plot of Nolan's other film, The Prestige, and thats a pretty long plot write up. rootology (T) 06:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down to just under 700 words. The movie wasn't that complex - the majority of what was in that section was extraneous details about each plan the Joker had. We don't need to know how he escapes jail, just that he escapes jail. The bit about the hostages from the bus...minor. There was also quite a bit of POV wording and dramatized text. For example, do we need "the burned-out husk of the building where Rachel died", or is "the building where Rachel died" sufficient? Or, "The Joker acknowledges that Batman really is indeed incorruptible but that Dent is no longer the white knight; he has unleashed the scarred man on the city." changed to "The Joker acknowledges that Batman really is incorruptible, but that he has unleashed Dent's madness upon the city." - same point, just less descriptives.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a big mistake that I read this section when I haven't even seen the film yet. Gary King (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to the article discussion before then probably is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New images

First of all, I would like to see about replacing the current image of the Joker, since what we are using is a very early image. Here are some alternatives: 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, to be able to show Batman, James Gordon, and Harvey Dent, American Cinematographer provides critical commentary:

One important scene on the roof of police headquarters provides a glimpse into the efficient and flexible mode of working that Nolan and Pfister maintained in spite of the sprawling size of the production. After putting their heads together about the best way to shoot several pages of dialogue involving Gordon, Batman and Dent, Nolan and Pfister decided to do the scene in a single circular Steadicam move, maximizing the Chicago skyline in the background. “In the story, these three men form a triumvirate, and it was very important to bind them together and show them in this massive environment,” says Nolan.

This scene can be seen here and would be useful as a thematic shot instead of a technical shot (production design, art design, costume design). This photo could break up the wall of text in the "Cast and characters" section. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

#2 would be great for the make-up and effects stuff, about how he's not skin-bleached but made up, and #3 would be great for Ledger's interpretation or a plot photo. IMO, at least. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How would #3 fit with an interpretation? I was thinking that one Joker image would be enough, and it should be relatively clear. Regarding "plot photos", I would actually discourage such usage. Screenshots are permissible when accompanied by critical commentary (per this), so I think that they are pretty easily challenged by NFC enforcers if they are found in the Plot section without any secondary-source support. I'm working up a draft for MOSFILM to suggest how non-free images could be implemented, so feel free to join the discussion there. Are you OK with the "triumvirate" thematic shot, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think either the first two images would be good replacements for the Joker, the second being a little better than the first because it shows more of the degeneration of his make-up which was a part of what they were going for with the character. I'm always hesistant about pictures in the cast section, and basically dislike them in the plot because they rarely have real critical commentary in that section (i.e. they're probably better in some other section). I think we can go ahead and implement that pic of Batman, Dent and Gordon for the cast section, because it could use a little eye dressing. That, or find a really good quote for a quote box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "triumvirate" shot work better in the Cast section than anywhere else, though? We have focused on the new design of Batman and the design of the Joker in the "Design" section, so any images directly related to their costumed appearances would go there. With Nolan expressing the intent to "bind them together", it seems that the "triumvirate" shot is as good as any to get a look at the "normal" Harvey Dent and James Gordon. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was talking about when I said go ahead and use it. I think you could probably pass the critical commentary on it for use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I missed that addition... I think we can include it after a little rewrite of "Cast and characters" to indicate the "triumvirate" theme between Batman, Harvey Dent, and James Gordon. I put up some suggestions at /to do, so feel free to add or revise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

semi protection

As crazy as it sounds, I think we should take it off. A lot of new people could be introduced to Wikipedia this weekend, here. If the vandalism gets too over the top, it can be reprotected. rootology (T) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this, since we should have enough eyes on this article to seek re-protection if the vandalism is overwhelming. Others' thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I love All the Crazy™. I even have Wikipedia: The Board Game. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. We can all watch and revert out the vandals and the worst of it. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the request has been there on WP:RPP for over seven hours. Gary King (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of figured something would have come up. As the movie has been out now as well in the US for... well, people should be getting out of midnight shows in the next 30 minutes, can some admin reading this just unprotect? :) rootology (T) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot issues

"Batman speeds off to save Rachel while Gordon and the police head after Dent."

"Batman arrives and rescues Dent just as the building explodes, but the left side of Harvey's face is burned during the explosion. Gordon does not make it to Rachel in time, who is caught in the blast."

"As Dent threatens to kill Gordon's family to pay for the death of Rachel, Batman convinces him to judge him (Batman) for not saving Rachel."

This requires some serious clarification.71.170.13.9 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the Plot will have copyediting problems over the next few days as new or updated info rolls in. Gary King (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear? It's all rather straight forward. Unless you can provide a reasoning for why you think it needs clarification, just saying that doesn't really help us understand what is so confusing. The only thing I can see that needs clarification is the exploding buildings, and I added that the Joker detonates them so that it's clear that it wasn't a random moment that they went off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The clarification is that the Joker switched the addresses on Batman.

What makes you think that the Joker switched addresses? I didn't see any evidence for that interpretation. It seemed to me that it's more likely, and in-character, that Batman actually chose to go after (and save) Dent, and that his "Rachel!" dialogue was just a red herring by Nolan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.2.2 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The film makes him think that. As in, the events of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.32.93 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That bit of information is miniscule. I've kept it anyway, but reworded it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong, Batman meant to save Rachel, not Dent. (Gordon: Who are you going after? Batman: Rachel. Gordon: Ok we'll get Dent) It doesnt get any clearer then that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite disagree; we are not explicitly told that and, as there seems to be dissent as to interpretation, we should likely not play the OR dicing game. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face's fate?

In the plot section, it said that he dies in the end. I don't recall them ever revealing for certain what his fate was. While they did tell the public that he died, it was obvious that they were lying to the public, as they said that he died before becoming Two-Face. If they lied about that, then they could just have easily been covering up that he is still alive and locked up in Arkahm. But then again, he really could be dead. I really didn't see anything to suggest either scenario. If somebody can find some evidence to prove whether he was dead or unconscious in the final scene, then i'd love to here it.The Great Morgil (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing too much analyzing of their "lies". Neither of the two made mention that he was alive either, and that they were going to "hide" him away somewhere. The memorial was for him, because he was dead. Please do not turn this into another Eddie Brock death scene moment. He fell off the building (he wasn't wearing protective armor like Batman), Batman turned his face and he didn't respond, they talk about him as if he was dead, there is a memorial service held in honor of his death...all evidence (at the moment) points to him being dead. Just because you don't see them bury the body doesn't mean that he's alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should your opinion hold anymore credability then his? Ive seen Dark Knight twice already and its VERY possible that Dent is alive. Dent was a symbol of hope for Gotham and they cant risk letting anyone know that he was corrupted, dead OR alive... not to mention that wasnt a very far fall and do you really think Nolans stupid enough to waste Two Face like that when he had barely even scratched the surface of what he is capable of now that hes being played by Aaron Eckhart. Dent lives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's true. I just saw Dent eating sloppy sandwiches with Elvis. ;)

We are led to believe he is dead. Everything points to him being dead. The film treats him as if he were dead. Therefore, to avoid OR, he is dead until we learn otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What possibility? The fact that he fell a great distance, with no padding, on his back? The fact that Batman turned his face and he wasn't breathing or showing any signs of life? The fact that they discussed what they should do to preserve his image? The fact that Gotham holds a memorial service in his honor for dying? Riiight, there is every bit a chance that he's still alive. If they decide to "resurrect" him, and say he was really alive but they kept him in some secret location (retcon anyone?) then we can say his "apparent" (and even then, I don't like going back into movies that have been retconned and changing the info to reflect the new stuff). Please stay away from original research. For all intents, at the moment, Two-Face is dead. There was no shred of evidence to suggest that he may still be alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bignole, guess what? You didnt write the movie. Therefore everything you are saying is specualtion and your opinion, and nothing more... Dent easily could have been knocked out cold and badly injured but still survive, and thats the bottom line, Dents fate is not set in stone. You mentioned the memorial service and preserving his image... well do you think it would be a good idea to show all of Gotham the new Harvey Dent (whether Batman took the blame for the murders or not) it would be very clear to Gotham that Dent has gone insane and become corrupt... so of course they would announce him dead and put him in Arkham.. kind of like how they announced Gordon was dead (he even let his own family believe he was dead) to trick the Joker, so what makes you think everything ive said is an impossibility?... your acting like a child. Im not going to sit he and argue with you as your mind seems pretty set but for everyone thats not as close minded as you, there is plenty of room for speculation and like ive said before I very much doubt that Nolan would kill off such an interesting character when his debut for actually becoming "Two Face" was short lived in the film... there is much more room for Dent to grow and threaten Gotham and its residents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, and when you have some evidence to suggest that he isn't dead (like a movie that doesn't mourn his death) then we can talk about it again. Until then, there is nothing left to talk about. Wikipedia DOES NOT speculate. We base everything off of the facts. The FACT remains that he was presented in film as dead. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They did not present anything other than that. You are the one speculating as to whether or not they lied. Personally, I would like for him to be alive, because I would like to see more of him. Unfortunately, that was not what they showed on screen. So...since we do not speculate on Wikipedia, and he was shown to be "dead" (whether they retcon that death or not), as far as this plot section is concerned he died. Have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever man im done arguing you can have your Wiki page hahahaha but even so im not speculating... Dents fate was not set in stone, but say whatever you want. peace.

Nothing is set in stone in a movie, that's why they call it fiction. That's why we have retconning, so they can go back and change things as they like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sign your comments please. Also, I now agree with Bignole. Dent's fate is clear in the film even if they bring him back in the next one for a surprise "I'm not really dead" scene. I think we need to semi-protect the page form anons--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was an anon do you think id be taking the time to come back and reply to these comments, im at work I cant sign, sorry. And im not trying to be an a hole either but im telling you Dents not dead ive already seen an interview with Aaron Eckhardt stating that he cant way to play Two-Face again.. Look it up on youtube.

Joker Figure section

I removed this section, but forgot to explain why, and now its removal has been reverted. It is horribly written and is all original research with no citations whatsoever. I am going to remove it again, now that I have explained why. If you feel that it is an integral part of the article (which I say it most certainly is not) I suggest re-writing it and finding a few sources before reverting my edit. Thanks! 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed and only re-incorporated in some aspect of the "Marketing" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, I just saw the mass blanking and reverted on instinct. I never saw the section before, and your comment just now made me go check it. I agree, it should be removed. It's completely unsourced, and would be better served as a minor blip in another section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, sorry I didn't explain myself in the first place. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry it took so long to realize that the section should not have been there in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

worth mentioning

should it be worth mentioning the films 9.7 out of 10 out of 4500 votes on IMDB? According to the stats, 80 percent of people who reviewed that film gave it a 10 out of 10. It's the highest rating of any movie ever there, and once they use some formula ( i think they remove the top 100 votes and the bottom 100 votes or something like that) it's #4 on the voting for highest rated film, eclipsed only by The Godfather, the godfather part 2, and the Shawshank redemption. More info can be found here & here- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because we don't use IMDb polls. They are unreliable, as are most online poll voting systems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, and am in fact a little more draconian about it. I wou;d purge all voting until the movie has left theatres, so as to avoid having to constantly modify numbers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, user ratings definitely should be excluded per WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Heck, even Transformers was in the Top 250 at IMDb at one time... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally concur. But if I ever get a film, you all have to vote for it (and put it in the article). --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)