Talk:The Dark Knight (film)

Find sources: "The Dark Knight (film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Universal/Critical Acclaim

I don't understand the problem with listing this movie as receiving one of the titles. A 94% on Rotten Tomatoes should be enough, but either way, we've listed other films such as Airplane!, Spider-Man 2 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 with the same title.

I'm not sure why. We should never say "universal acclaim" because there is always somebody somewhere that dissents. I don't see a problem with using "near-universal acclaim" though. And why do you capitalize it? It's not like an award called "Universal Acclaim". –CWenger (^ • @) 23:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is one place. It doesn't poll every critic, it takes a sample size. So, "univeral" is inaccurate because you could never actually say that and those other pages should reflect that as well. As for "near universal" or even "critical", that's a subjective interpretation of the data. We're not allowed to interpret data that way, we're supposed to be neutral observers. The neutral thing to do is stay objective and just point out that the film received positive reviews. The "94%" will tell the reader the average level of approval.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is "near universal" more subjective than "positive"? Only that it is allowing less room for error as far as I can tell. But if a film had more marginal ratings, say 65% at Rotten Tomatoes, where do you draw the line between "positive" and "mixed"? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't typically draw such a line. I usually go straight to the percentage and say "The Dark Knight had a 94% approval rating". Then I leave it at that. That removes all subjectivity out of it completely. "Near univeral" is beyond subjective, it's also inaccurate because you cannot verify the "universality" because you cannot poll every critic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that it's better to just go straight to the aggregated rankings. But we'll have to agree to disagree on "near-universal critical acclaim". –CWenger (^ • @) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bignole, but do you have a problem with this movie? Is that why you're making a mountain out of a mole hill for this? Can we honestly list it as critically accclaimed and leave it at that?173.79.209.215 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A problem with the movie? No, I loved the movie. That doesn't change the fact that "critical acclaim" is a highly subjective term, one that is extremely hard to actually verify. You're basing it on a Rotten Tomatoes rating. First, RT doesn't poll every critic, so you cannot generalize 200+ critics back to the critic population as "universal acclaim" or "critical acclaim". Secondly, RT doesn't poll outside of the US, which leaves an extremely large portion of critics not even measured. Lastly, if you've read some of the reviews you'll notice that a lot of them though listed as "approval" are closer to mixed in their analysis. Saying "critical acclaim" or "univeral acclaim" suggests that most critics found basically nothing wrong with the film. That isn't true at all. It's much better to just say "there was a 94% approval rating from critics", because it removes all subjectivity out of the equation as Wikipedia is not supposed to be interpretating data like that regardless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one to think this. I suggest an WP:RFC.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the sort of wording that's typical in film articles on WP; something along the lines of "in general, the film received positive reviews" or "in general the film was received positively by critics". Including something like "in general" protects against anyone interpreting this too literally, and leaves room to add "But so-and-so did criticize the film for its something-or-other" to add balance. And while there is of course a small degree of OR (in determining what draws the line between "generally positive" and something else), that is something we must to some extent commit all the time when editing Wikipedia; making some informed judgments about and drawing conclusions from a bunch of sources is what makes this an encyclopedia rather than a review aggregator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To Valkyrie - Feel free to request comment from WP:FILM or WP:MOSFILM.

To Rjanag - If I have to add any "comment", that is typically the way that I do it. As simply saying "positive reviews" is less subjective (and far less POV-y) than saying "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim", which sounds more like we're trying to sell the film than discuss it from an encyclopedic standpoint.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, why not argue on the second part of Harry Potter 7? Or Airplane? Why stick with just The Dark Knight, unless you have some sort of personal issue with the film...--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the other guys, but I don't have those articles on my watchlist and I do this one. I won't be held responsible for every other article in the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, do I have to remind you that I actually like this film (own it and have watched it probably 5 times since I bought it...plus seeing it in theaters). I'm where Rjanag is. I don't watchlist those film pages. The fact that they are probably using terminology that is both inaccurate, subjective, and possibly not a neutral stance has no bearing on this page. There are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are not a reflection of how things are intended to be, that doesn't mean we change all the other pages to mirror those inaccuracies. This page I do watch, and this page I do want to reflect a health understanding of Wikipedia's philosophy on how to write about entertainment based subjects that are consequently critiqued by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals around the world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As there is no consensus here on using "universal acclaim", and as there is a broader discussion over guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception, I am adjusting that hyperbolic, non-neutral phrase and inviting other editors to the discussion of this topic at that Project page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Time

My DVD clocks 145 min. instead of the 152 min. as stated here is there a different version or is this normal ? In fact most of my DVD's are at leased 5 min. shorter than stated on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See my response to your post at Talk:Star Trek (film)#Time. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Chechen?

The character mentioned thrice in this article as Chechen got no introduction and was first mentioned as "Maroni and the Chechen". Reading the article however, with not yet having seen the film, I have no idea which character is Chechen nor whether this nationality is actually relevant to the summary.

83.119.101.171 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the same person who made this section, and I logged in and tried to find the version where 'the Chechen' was added, but no luck. I was trying to find whether a previous version had a more obvious synonym.

FrisianDude (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

mistake in the plot

The first paragraph has, "Batman and Lieutenant Jim Gordon decide to include new district attorney Lieutenant Jim Gordon[...]" That second "Lieutenant Jim Gordon" should be "Harvey Dent" instead.

mistake in the plot

The first paragraph has, "Batman and Lieutenant Jim Gordon decide to include new district attorney Lieutenant Jim Gordon[...]" That second "Lieutenant Jim Gordon" should be "Harvey Dent" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.123.170 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)