Talk:The Dark Knight Rises

World premiere date source

Is this source acceptable for the world premiere date, which takes place on July 16? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Production Notes

http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/downloads/TDKR_productionNotes.pdf

This is from the official website for the movie and has a lot of good source material. Just thought I'd post it and see if anybody wants it.

75.87.109.34 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Detail in the cast section

Looking at the cast section of this article, I think there is far too much information posted there. Some of it could probably be relocated elsewhere - maybe a subsection on casting under production - but the cast's in-depth thoughts on what motivates their characters is just excessive. It's like people have been adding anything and everything they can find on the cast and characters, and the end result is that the entire section has become swollen under its own weight of detail. I think it needs substantial re-writes, because about 90% of it is just quotes from the cast. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I say one or the other. I don't like seeing cast lists and "casting" sections that just divide up information into 2 locations. If we don't need a "list" then just include everyone in the "Casting" section. Actors can be put next to character names in a plot section if it's necessary to actually do immediate attachments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the more-pressing issue is the sheer amount of information included. Like I said, it's as if editors have simply added anything and everything that they could find on the subject, without giving much thought as to what should actually be included, and the end result is that it's a bloated mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone through most of the article now, and removed a whole lot of unnecessary content. I've condensed quotes in particular down to their important components, paraphrased a lot of it and done some fairly extensive rewrites in places. All in all, I managed to get rid of about 11,000 bytes. The end result is leaner, but I think it's more succinct and to the point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

spelling error "Bane is describeS as" ... should be "describeD as"

24.138.76.232 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done fixed, thank you for pointing that out. RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A Themes and Inspiration section?

Here is an article I found that discussed the inspirations of the films: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92305 --Eddyghazaley (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, for now. Literary interpretation is a very subjective matter at the best of times. I can see where the themes in The Dark Knight Rises and A Tale of Two Cities might intersect, but only in a loose sense. So I'd suggest waiting until the release, and if a critic - particularly a prominent one - points out the parallels, or some kind of essay, then maye we could reconsider. Maybe the best way forward is a sentence on it in the development subsection, but anything more would probably need something to go with Nolan's comments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Release and WP:SPOILERS

With the film a week away, I feel like now is a good time to bring something up that is likely to be an issue: spoilers. Although most countries get the film on the 20th, some of us - myself included - get it on the 19th, and possibly even earlier. As such, it is likely that an outline of the plot will go up early on the 19th.

Spoilers have been a recurring issue in many of the major releases that I have seen, including The Avengers and Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol. Some people will remove content from the page for the sake of not spoiling the film for others, and while this is a perfectly understandable point of view, Wikipedia does have a policy on this, and I would like to draw attention to two key parts of it:

Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so.

And:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

Now, I know the page is protected, so IP edits deleting the plot section should not be a problem. However, auto-confirmed users may do it. If you see someone has blanked the plot section for the sake of protecting readers from spoilers, please revert those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What I will say is that if people are adding the plot, if it is before the actual release date it SHOULD be removed, not for spoilers but because it is unverifiable. People added a plot early at Prometheus and there were complaints it was inaccurate and this was later confirmed that it was largely inaccurate. Getting a plot up as fast as possible is not the goal of these articles and is likened to someone posting "First" in a comments section, the important part should it being accurate and short, not present. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED! Get that through your head. If the plot can be put up before "official" release, then we owe it to people who enjoy the FREE FLOW OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION to put it up for them to see. We are not here to censor so-called "spoilers" because you are desperately attempting to weasel them out by claiming "omgz da movie has not come out in every single country evaaaar, so we can't post plot".

Once it has been viewed ANYWHERE, all we require is a consensus and the plot section can be created and/or updated. This can change when it's verifiable by major sources but until then the public at large has been to private and select screenings. Deal with it. You can't stop the signal! 124.169.54.104 (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Batman

I thnk you rather missed the point of DWB's statement. Millahnna (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

FIRST! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But yeah seriously, I think the IP stopped reading my statement about 23 words in. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, There is a difference between removing the plot outline because you don't want film spoled for others, and removing it because it's wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is a special circumstance where we should at the very least include a warning that this article is filled to the teeth with spoilers. People going to the article before seeing the movie for something like cast information will be incredibly upset, and I think the anticipation for this movie is debate-ably greater than the vast majority of films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.122.5 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's POV, and it's something that changes per article (some people might think the same for movie X). Keeping things neutral, this article is going to be treated like every other article on this site. See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Please change "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in Australia on July 19, 2012" to "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in New Zealand on July 19, 2012" because of the time difference between New Zealand and Australia it will actually be shown in New Zealand first. See the original source for confirmation that it is releasing in New Zealand on July 19 and see [zone] for confirmation about the time difference.

Thanks for your time. O0henry0o (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I woud suggest that "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in Australia and New Zealand on July 19, 2012" might be a better way to put it. WP:FILMRELEASE dictates the following:

The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. {{Film date}} should be used for the film's release dates. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article.

Adjusting the article to say Australia rather than New Zealand would be wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't account for any possible differences in screening times in both countries. It is entirely conceivable that the earliest showing in Australia is 9am, and the earliest in New Zealand is at 1pm. Even though New Zealand is three hours ahead of Australia, the earlier screening time technically means that it went on general release in Australia first. Secondly, it kind of feels like you're angling for bragging rights by saying New Zealand got to see the film first. I know that's probably not your intention, but when you're making an edit request based on a three-hour time difference, it does seem a little pedantic. So I will partially meet your edit request, and amend the article to read "Australia and New Zealand". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first reason is invalid because they are screening it at 12:00am on July 19th in Australia and New Zealand. Secondary it's not about bragging rights it's about it being correct. What was written on the page was incorrect, it is not being released it Australia first. Incorrections like this give wikipedia a bad reputation for being a legit source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0henry0o (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a single example of a film release where a three-hour time difference between markets has justified a change of wording in an article to say one market released the film first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

There appears to be some discord as to whether we should retain the reception summary statement as The Dark Knight Rises has "received universal praise from critics" or "received generally positive reviews from critics" or the like. In order to preclude edit warring, please discuss sentiments here.--Ziggypowe (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, I'm against any use of "critical/universal acclaim" because of the simple fact that you cannot generalize such a small sample to every critic in that way. RT and MetaCritic only pull from a certain number. RT pulls from an average of 200, but they don't use the words "acclaim". MetaCritic will use "acclaim" but only pull from maybe 50 critics, at best. That's not enough to use those terms. I'm ok with "generally positive" or just "positive", but I'm also ok with nothing and just let the data reflect itself. Readers are not stupid and can figure out that a 95% approval rating is pretty positive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "Universal acclaim" in any capacity this early is incorrect. Using universal acclaim when there are 29 reviews on one site is absolutely unacceptable.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While I do not believe it is compulsory, I believe it would be a judicious decision to defer the inclusion - for a couple of days - of "universal praise" or "universal acclaim" or the like. This will allow for The Dark Knight Rises to accrue a broader critical review or acclaim status that may better reflect that statement. If it retains highly positive scores akin what it has garnered thus far, that would merit inclusion. I prefer "virtually universal critical acclaim" to qualify the statement some, as there is always some dissenters. --Ziggypowe (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem there is that it is your opinion that it has "acclaim". You cannot weaken the stance by using "virtually", because it's still a POV assessment. That's the problem with such a strong qualifier. Like I said, Rotten Tomates collects more reviews but never uses words like "critical acclaim", while MetaCritic does use those words but only collects a handful of reviews. Either way, it's an inappropriate qualifier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It so no more my opinion that the movie has "critical acclaim" than it has "positive reviews." --Ziggypowe (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both are "opinions" in a technical sense, but one is a generalization and the other applies a more specific meaning that cannot be measured by the data we collect. I can say that most reviews were positive. I cannot actually show that there is "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim" because that is applying a level of magnitude in the positivity of the review that we measure, as well as insinuating a numerical understanding of how many critics praised a film that, again, we cannot measure because we're only taking samples.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite it may being a sample, you may still obtain an efficaciously accurate description of the movie's reception and approval status, i.e., "critical acclaim." The GA article, Inception, states: "The film was critically acclaimed." I have seen such a statement in many other film articles as well. "Critically acclaimed" is acceptable for inclusion in The Dark Knight Rises article also. It is common sense, which Wikipedia espouses the use of, that if a film is lauded and enjoys high scores, it could be considered "critically acclaimed."--Ziggypowe (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, but pointing to other articles that do something isn't always a valid reason to adopt it in this or any other article, and neither is whipping out "common sense". DonQuixote (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Inception is like 2-3 years old and has the benefit of hindsight in declaring such a thing (though I wouldn't agree with it). People are trying to apply it to a film based on an incredibly small group of reviews from a single site when it isn't even out and when things can drastically change. Long story short, do.not.add.it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, we can wait for The Dark Knight Rises to accrue a broader critical review and approval status that may better reflect the statement of "critically acclaim." If it retains highly positive scores akin what it has garnered thus far, that would merit inclusion of "critically acclaim."--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What everyone is saying is that there is not going to be any level that would garner that wording because of a lack of the number of reviews as well as the lack of substantial reviews saying that. You cannot determine "acclaim" on your own. I don't need to worry about determining "positive", becuase Rotten Tomatoes does that for me by assigning a positive/negative figure to reviews and counting them. That said, with the film now slipping down into the 80s in approval, I don't think it's going to magically jump up anywhere near what even you would consider "critical acclaim".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the reception section so far. Lemire's review need's to be added to at least be a little neutral...and IGN is not really the best of inclusions for movie reviews. If no improving has done later looks like I may have to step in. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The reception section is naturally in its infant stage as the movie has not even been formally and widely released yet. Also, step in and do what exactly? --Ziggypowe (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Help out editing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I am well aware that it's in it's infant stage but avoiding a negative review when there is one is against Wikipedia's neutral policy. It's amazing how fast positive reviews are added over a negative review. That being said I am more than patient on it being improved. So that's why I am in the sidelines for now and letting other editor's do their thing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@User:Just another guy in a suit, this phrase "While not as acclaimed as its predecessor" is POV, unnecessary commentary and entirely subjective based on the comparison of weighted subjective scores from aggregate sites. Like the above discussion it is incorrect and inappropriate and I urge you to discontinue adding it. If you think its inclusion has support, feel free to ask here where I'm fairly certain you will be proven wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, why not just say what the Rotten Tomatoes consensus says. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding their blurb isn't a problem (Which isn't saying the same thing he is saying), he's opening the section with that commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. RT seems to be the only source to back up a claim like that, that's why I mentioned it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to be late to this particular discussion, but we've had many similar discussions on the [[WP:FIM] ]talk page, where the feeling is that "critically acclaimed" for anything not a widely acknowledged film classic that has stood the test of time is a WP:PEACOCK term. The manifest content of the term "critically acclaimed" doesn't provide any more objective, factual information than the more measured and neutral term "positively reviewed." I agree with the commenter who said it doesn't belong at Inception. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake If we're using RT to reflect the film having "received largely positive reviews from critics", why aren't we then acknowledging that it hasn't been as well-received as its predecessor? The rating and consensus reflect this. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We SHOULD be using reviews to reflect that, not RT. RT makes up its own consensus and weighting system and to open the section based on that is not an acceptable methodology and applies undue weight to RT. It is also, as I said, subjective. RT judges what is good and what is bad. Are the reviews "It's awesome, Joker was just a better villain"? Subjective. And based at the moment, on an exceedingly small pool of reviews. But I've said this to you a few times already, so I'll let others weigh in. If you're that desperate to add it, add the RT consensus TO the part discussing RT. Do not open the section with it as if it is the gospel truth. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not desperate to add anything. It's just that RT is the most trusted review aggregator here, and its rating and consensus reflect that this is an inferior film in the eyes of critics. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Barring the fact that is subjective, barring the fact that its based on one site and its methodology of aggregating reviews, barring the fact that they are not in direct competition or comparison, the films youre talking about have nearly THREE HUNDRED reviews, so your assertion that it is declaring it an "inferior" film is again, unacceptable, and does not belong in this article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On a few other films pages, they have been discussions what should be the critic consensus on Wikipedia, and it always concluded that it is either 'generally negative reviews' or 'generally positive reviews' or some other way with 'negative' and 'positive' interested in. No 'panned' or 'acclaimed'. As it is biased and not professional.

The film so far, isn't as acclaimed as The Dark Knight, so we can say that. "Received positive reviews, but not as many as The Dark Knight". Charlr6 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the word "largely" is synonymous with "generally." It does not have to be in respect to weight. Check here and you will see that such is true.--Ziggypowe (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically, it's incorrect to use it that way. Not to mention that it is a peacock term because it's a non-descript measurement that cannot be verified. Additionally, it's a qualifier for a qualifier, which is also inappropriate for writing. In other words, you have an adjective describing another adjective, which is itself describing something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who added it nor am I fervent about its inclusion, but you are incorrect when you state it is grammatically wrong to use it in that manner. It is apt and grammatically correct to use it in the manner it was used.--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you state, "it's a qualifier for a qualifier." That is what adverbs are for to modify chiefly verbs and in some languages, including English, adjectives, such as "positive." As for not being verifiable, the fact that the great majority of reviewers on RT are classified as positive, corroborates the use of "largely," which is synonymous with "mostly" and "mainly."--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ziggypowe, the term "largely" for one does not have to be in reference to weight. Also in the case of using it in the reception section of a movie in dealing with reviews, there are other examples of movies where is has been used and not removed such as the wizard of oz. Also you also revert back the number of reviews on rotten tomatoes from 122 to 121 while it is currently at 122 on rotten tomatoes. Davidhogan 3 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One article doing something is not an excuse for others to do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one example of many though that I have seen on wikipedia pages that refer to movies Davidhogan 3 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree not in all cases, but in many cases looking at other articles is a good way to see how something should be done, especially higher rated articles such as GA (e.g. Inception) and FA articles.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To give you a general idea, yes, but not for specific wordings. In the case of Inception, we've already pointed out that there was a discussion regarding the use of "Critical acclaim" in films and that Inception should not be using that terminology. With regard to "largely". Yes, I understand that some people see it as "generally", but the primary definition is not "generally". The problem with using it lies in its inability to accurate reflect what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the reviews were "really" positive, or that there were "many" positives? The term "largely" does not have a singular definition that makes it easy to understand what you're referring to. Given that the primary definition for "largely" is a reflection of "weight" (I don't necessarily mean how much something literally weighs, but also the value of something) and not a reflection of numerical significance (though yes, I get that it can be used that way). Given that, it is inappropriate to use because of its unclear meaning in the sentence. Thus, it is better to just leave out any additional modifier, unless you're going to be more specific about what you're saying. "Largely" is not an appropriate qualifier to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just stating, "The Dark Knight Rises has received positive reviews from critics,"implicitly, and some maybe would say explicitly, declares all reviews are positive. When a qualifier is added in signifies that all reviews may not have been positive, which is the case. Nevertheless, I prefer "mostly" to "largely" anyway. I initially just wanted to refute your assertion that it was grammatically erroneous to use "largely" in that manner, but "mostly" is preferable and good to use.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm actually much happier with "mostly" in place of "largely." Sorry if my edit summary came off as brash. QValintyne (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Its fine. You were technically correct with using "largely" in the manner you did but some felt there was some ambiguity. Thus, it was altered to a more intelligible, unequivocal word: "mostly."--Ziggypowe (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just confirming...

...after having attended last night's NYC screening that the cast section here is correct and that Selina Kyle is never referred to as Catwoman either within the film or in the end-credits. Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson, who had cameos, are duly credited in the end-credits. (Now if anyone could just tell me whether the guy in the scene with John and the receptionist at the end is an uncredited John Malkovich or just someone who really, really looks like him!) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenebrae! You should totally feel free to add to the Plot section of the main article. So where exactly was the July 17th screening of the movie in New York? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.51 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2012

Robin John Blake not John Blake

168.161.192.16 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary section

Would it be crazy to say that this section should be cleaned up and merged with the Reception section? I think it's a tad too sparse to be a full-on commentary section on its own. Could the frivelous claims by Rush Limbaugh be added as well?[1] QValintyne (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be gotten rid of all together, as it has nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with one person trying to force a political agenda out of the movie. If it's allowed to be here, then someone should go add a section to The Muppets (film) for the same thing, as various reporters and personalities on Fox News tried to push it out as communist propaganda. 138.162.140.53 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken references

The reference section is a huge mess, replete with cite errors. Since I'm not a regular contributor to this article, could any such person look into it? Ilov90210 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that to. I've never seen anything like it (though this page uses a format slightly different to what I'm used to). I have no idea what happened or how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Took a bit of finding, but it was an additional reflist tag that caused the issue. Two cites still in red - I can't see where they would obviously be.. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been fixed.

Minor spelling error

Hello :)

Just spotted a minor spelling error here: "Alfred is unable to accep Bruce's...". It should be accepT. Please change it, much thanks. I'll keep an eye out for more. I would edit it myself (it's not even a big deal) but the article is locked :/

Love that you guys updated this article today <3 Great work, keep it up!

Spoilers

There are so many spoilers throughout. Especially in regards to Marion Cotillard's character and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character's name. Someone should remove these.--173.21.31.68 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't put spoiler tags in the article. If you don't like being spoiled, you shouldn't be on the film wiki article or just ignore the part. StarShopSTX (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that the plot should stay and that wikipedia isn't concerned with spoilers. The fact that someone has altered the names to reveal parts of the movie is just trolling. I reverted the names to how they are listed in promotional material and the credits of the film. If someone would like to change them back they should find a source to reference. Skute (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:SPOILER:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section).

The Archivist (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, you shouldn't trust any pop culture article on Wikipedia; they're notorious for their unreliability and fan theories. ;) 50.131.220.134 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Blake, Alfred and the Joker

I've noticed a few things in the plot summary that need to be addressed:

1) We cannot link to the Robin oage when referring to Blake. No character in the comics who has assumed the identity of Robin has ever used the name "Robin John Blake". Furthermore, the ending can be interpreted as meaning that Blake will become the second Batman, not Robin. Until someone involved in production - like Nolan - confirms that Blake is intended to be Robin, we cannot state that he is. For the sake of comparison, look to the post-credits scene of The Avengers, where the Other meets Thanos. It is never speciically stated that the character is Thanos, and it is only with confirmation from Marvel that the film's page can state the character is Thanos. The same logic applies here.

2) The plot outline states that Alfred "manipulates Bruce Wayne". I would argue that he is not manipulating Bruce, and that doing so is out of character. Impressing upon Bruce the idea that he cannot be Batman anymore is a much more neutral and much more consistent description.

3) The opening line of the outline states "eight years after the Joker killings", which links to the page for The Dark Knight. When I first wrote the outline, I used this particular phrase very deliberately. Characters within the film The Dark Knight specifically refer to the events within the film as "the Joker killings" in the same way that characters within The Dark Knight Rises refer to the anniversary of Harvey Dent's death as "Harvey Dent Day".

Also, I find the explantion of Bane's backstory to be long and excessively detailed, and especially out of place as it is later proven to be incorrect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that linking The Dark Knight (film) to the Joker Killings violates WP:EGG, as we do not include easter egg links. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But it's not an easter egg. The film clearly establishes that it takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, which itself refers to the events it portrays as "the Joker killings". It's not in violation of WP:EGG. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary ending

I believe that the ending to the movie written here in the plot summary is misleading, Batman definitely dies at the end. He is seen in The Bat five seconds before the bomb detonates, meaning it would be impossible for him to escape. He dies, and then Alfred sees him in the cafe in Florence because he wants to see him there, not because he is actually there.