Talk:The Dark Knight Rises

Edit request on 31 July 2012 - RUsh limbaugh 'Accusing movie of promoting anti conservative agenda"

Rush Limbaugh did not make any accusation toward the movie creators' motives regarding a political agenda. He commented on some members of the political left that were using, or accused of using the name of the antagonist 'Bane' and linking it to 'Bain' capital. The current text suggests that Limbaugh directed this criticism toward the movie; he directed it toward Romney's political opposition.

24.206.101.140 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources that say the above and we'll cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of the day in question. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign

Thanks for the transcript and your analysis of the transcript. Can you provide some reliable sources that verify your analysis so that we can avoid original research? DonQuixote (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, does it seem like the following is really subject to interpretation: "... You may think it's ridiculous, I'm just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. These are the kind of people that they are attempting to appeal to. " This is the final paragraph of the transcript on the Limbaugh site; I am curious as to where the sources are that lend support to the assertion in the original Wiki article that Limbaugh attacked the writers/producers/directors of the picture.

Additionally, your source citation 202 took an excerpt of the whole Limbaugh segment (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign) to promote the narrative that he attacked the movie for an Anti-Romney bent; but if one simply read the article beginning to end......or in this case, just read the end paragraph, it's more than clear that the target of Limbaugh's comments were political operatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.101.140 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interpretation of the transcript. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation so that we can cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this right: You have the actual transcript from Rush Limbaugh's own site, written in the English language. The end paragraph states very clearly who is being referenced, yet you're acting like this is subject to interpretation? (Even your source [202] has in its own comments' section the readership is attacking the article's narrative.) What source do you require.......in addition to the actual, entire, printed transcript already in your hands....to best clarify this? Not to be offensive, but I can't believe you're being this obtuse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.9.10 (talk • contribs)

I read the same transcript that you did and got a completely different interpretation. Unfortunately, my interpretation is no better than your interpretation and so it won't make its way into this article. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation (and those of the above internet commentators) thereby making it much, much better than mine and citeable within this article.

Also, see the above/archived discussions about the Lazaraus Pit and Deadshot which deal with similar issues of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I declare shenanigans. Where's my broom? Limbaugh has stated he is friendly with the writers. And no, I'm not going to include a reference which ONE PERSON (DonQuixote) somehow has given him/her/itself uncontested power to veto. Let's play this game. What reliable source can you produce DonQuixote that proves Limbaugh criticized the writers and not the politicization of the film's story? 76.73.210.228 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that "Limbaugh is friendly with the writers".

Also, I haven't written anything about this topic, so I don't need to provide reliable sources. However, I did peruse the section in question and the sources seem reliable enough for me. If others disagree, then they have the option to question the reliability of the source.

Finally, the bottom line is that the above is your interpretation and your analysis. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your ideas, or publish them in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the above link to the full transcript could be included as a reference, in case readers wished to examine the full text themselves? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That could probably be put under "References" or "External links". DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit request is spot on. Rush is being misquoted in the article; here are sources that should instead be used to show that this correlation between Bane and Bain was coming from Democratic strategists before the movie was released: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/16/picket-obama-camp-miscasts-batman-characters-romne/ http://voices.yahoo.com/to-save-obama-democrats-pin-their-hopes-bane-11576118.html?cat=9 http://washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-new-foe-batmans-bane/article/2502274#.UCVJIPZlTMc http://backwardsboy.blogspot.com/2012/07/comic-creator-of-bain-calls-bs-on-dems.html

Please provide a reliable source that states that Limbaugh was misquoted.

Also, thanks for pointing out other people drawing conclusions about Bain/Bane. The article has been amended to reflect that. Feel free to provide any other reliable sources discussing this. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning (seeing as this is the Talk section) that the several cited sources are not reliable sources, DonQuixote. Defending the integrity of Wikipedia is one thing; simply declaring that every source provided is somehow unreliable presents the appearance of abuse. For example, how do you define what constitutes a reliable source about quotations? Would not a reasonable person conclude that a transcript of the speech is proper quotation, for example? You seem to be fishing for someone to say (somehow authoritatively) "by the powers vested in me as a quotation understander, Limbaugh was clearly misquoted. I find for the misquoted!" and bang the gavel. Or are you traveling down the ol' meaning of what the word "is" is rabbit hole? What possible logic do you employ in this case? 68.47.23.59 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources don't say that he was misquoted, they just point out other people saying similar things and people's responses to them.

And yes, a transcript is a proper quotation, but him being misquoted is your interpretation. That falls under synthesis and POV. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote, you're being ridiculous. Perhaps there are no "reliable sources" saying Rush wasn't attacking the filmakers, because no "reliable sources" took that to be the case. Because it's completely fabricated. Just, outright made up out of thin air. How do you respond with "reliable sources" to completely false accusations? With that outlook I can just make up whatever I want and find some whacked out blogger who agrees with me and change content on Wikipedia. Your absurd bias is showing. The transcript CLEARLY shows Rush was NOT talking about the filmakers. But that's not enough to overcome your biased nonsense. 209.46.116.20 (talk)

It's been documented that people, such as Nolan, had responded to Limbaugh's comments. That hasn't been made up out of thin air. However, if you think these were based on false accusations, then either cite a reliable source that verifies this or publish your analysis in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Been a long time since I used Wikipedia, hope I follow all of the guidelines.) I don't think it needs to be said that he was misquoted. What probably should be mentioned is that Lehane spoke first, which then prompted Rush to speak (or was at least used as a lead up on his show). Right now, the sentence about Lehane is tacked on at the end. Putting Lehane first would more closely represent the chronology of the events and flow better overall. Also, is there a spot for Bane's creator talking about the comparisons? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/16/picket-obama-camp-miscasts-batman-characters-romne/)65.50.125.95 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aurora shooting mention in header?

Do you think it is warranted to mention the aurora shooting in the header paragraph? There is already a sectional mention in the article, while it is a very significant event its mention seems a little disjointed with the rest of the header and its relevance to the film.Duhon (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

it should be removed entirely from the page as it has nothing to do with the film itself; and could damage the franchise and place a stigma on DC's future endeavors with the character (24.250.31.224 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

The event itself shouldn't be covered in depth but considering most analysts thing that it has impacted the film's box office takings, perhaps forever undermining its true financial potential, it needs mentioning.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

John Blake ending

I think the end of the Plot section should say he becomes a new hero because the Batman legend is over. That's what it hints at with the tagline. Also, Gotham believes that Batman is dead. It would take away from the identity of Batman. Sean (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We cannot put our own interpretations into the plot. We're only reporting what is actually shown, and in summary form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On that note then, it says "Batman is later praised as a hero, while Bruce is assumed killed in the riots." Why do we assume Bruce was killed in the riots?129.139.1.75 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, I am not sure. It is clear that he is presumed dead (hence the reading of his will), I think someone probably added the "in the riots" part because it was the only logical place for them to believe he was killed. It can and probably should be removed to just say that Bruce is presumed dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, someone on ask.com made a good point that Batman is still alive, and the last sequences aren't just showing what his old friends want to see: Alfred didn't know that Bruce was in love with Selina Kyle, so that's an actual surprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.109.200 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'trilogy'

Basically, the word 'trilogy' is used as equal and or similar to 'series' in this context, when it should only be 'series'. A trilogy is three stories that may all function as one. These three movies are part of Nolan's series, but they are not a trilogy. A good example of trilogy would be the first and second 'Star wars' trilogies. Basically, stories in their own right that are part of a great one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.106.250.187 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"trilogy |ˈtrɪlədʒi|, noun: a group of three related novels, plays, films, etc." The term trilogy is used here in the correct way, and also in the sense in which you define it, as it tells the story of Bruce Wayne. However you look at it, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises are a trilogy. drewmunn (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Batplane

Should The Bat say it is the film's Batplane? Isn't more the film's Batcopter? It's a rotorcraft isn't it, with that big helicopter sized propeller underneath. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They've never identified it as such. It's based more around planes than helicopters, per the source. Either way, they basically say it is their version of the batwing, not the batcopter. So, we go with what they say, not what we believe it should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Riddled with errors

If it's going to be locked at least sort the spelling and typos out. "show trails", "sentance" - come on! Anon-ish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.53.24 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect presumption in article.

​ In the article it is stated that the bomb presumably killes Batman, however in the movie it is revealed that the autopilot has been fixed by Bruce Wayne months earlier, I believe there should be some mention of this in the article.

There is. Not sure why you stopped reading the plot mid way, but keep on going and there it is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

The article needs to be edited to include a reference to the allusion (provided late in the movie) that Blake is Robin. Bunnycoat (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is, it's in the cast section under the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Robin

Why is it just a "reference"? Blake has characteristics of three Robins, works alongside Batman to take down some thugs and gets called Robin before taking over the batcave, and Gordon-Levitt pretty much confirms it in interviews by saying he wanted to keep the identity a secret and gives a smile and a "it would be fun" when asked about a spin-off. Again, why just a "reference"? The character is the trilogy's version of Robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerfan2009 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the original research. Please cite a reliable source that can verify this. DonQuixote (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is calling it a reference to Robin not substantial enough JokerFan? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And why does the plotbloating continue with this, DWB? --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out Joseph Gordon-Levitt's interview with HollywoodReporter from a few days ago, not sure if I'm allowed to post links so just look it up.