Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 11

Filming

The article states that the movie "was filmed primarily in Chicago, as well as in several other locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong." However, most of the outside scenes, as well as the view from offices' windows are clearly from Hong Kong, including the boats and essentially all skyscrapers. Indeed, the Gotham City skyline is the Hong Kong skyline. I suggest that the order that these locations appear on the article is changed to better reflect this (no, I'm not from Hong Kong, nor Chinese! :-) I just think that this would be a bit more fair). Winkler (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the article - they filmed in HK for less than a week. IIRC, the next largest shoot after Chicago (maybe even longer perhaps) was at Pinewood Studios outside of London. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's right. It is just in the middle of the article. Indeed, HK appears so often in the movie that it is surprising that everything was shot in just 1 week! Anyway, the article is great. Congrats to everybody who helped to write it! --Winkler (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the HK interiors were probably filmed at Pinewood with Translight backdrops, so actually, they would only have been required to shoot the exterior shots during that week. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be mistaking the Chicago skyline for Hong Kong, or be unfamiliar with what Chicago looks like. Aside from that one sequence, the skyline you're seeing as Gotham's is Chicago's, as is nearly every Gotham street/city exterior. I've lived in Chicago for a good chunk of my life and, believe me, that's Chicago. Also, why is this listed for "films shot in Los Angeles", but not "films shot in Chicago"? As far as I know, aside from a pick-up or two, none of this was shot in L.A. Is this another case of mistaken urban identity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was shot in LA - the category doesn't specify that films must be predominantly filmed there. But a Films shot in Chicago category would be in order, it would appear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Does anyone else feel the critical reception section is a bit long-winded? Compared to most movie articles, it's incredibly long. The Metacritic, RT and IMDB ratings plus perhaps a FEW major critic's ratings would sufice. 67.87.152.41 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, considering the hype buildup for the film itself, I say, althought there are a lot, that is actually a pretty accurate amount of reviews for a film of TDK's status. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been touched on before - it could probably be slimmed down a bit, most likely a few months from now after the hype has died down, in order to void unnecessary edit wars. faithless (^speak) 23:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The hype has certainly not died down. It's still all over the place, Joker impressions on youtube, it'll be "hyped" until next year! --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I feel it is long-winded, it should be divided up a little bit.Bob farter (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

casting

It says "Gary Oldman as James Gordon: Lieutenant of the Gotham City Police Department and one of the few police officers who is not corrupt." Shoud n't it be "Gary Oldman as James Gordon: Lieutenant of the Gotham City Police Department and one of the few police officers who are not corrupt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.200.59 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject ("one") is singular, so no. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, IP is correct, I think. Are not corrupt modifies 'the few police officers', and thus is Gordon one in that group. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"of the few police officers" is a participial phrase; simplified, the clause should be able to read without it - "one who is not corrupt". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, what IP meant was "Gordon is (one of the few (police officers who are not corrupt))", as opposed to Savonarola's "Gordon is ((one of the few police officers) who is not corrupt)"

The first meant that (1) the number of non-corrupt police officers is very small and, (2) Gordon is a member of that small group. Hence, Gordon is one of the few police officers who are not corrupt.

The second one, on the other hand, meant that (1) the number of police officers, corrupt or otherwise, is very small; Gotham City has a terribly small police force, (2) a fraction of the already few police force is non-corrupt, and (3) Gordon is a member of that fraction of the small police force.

Therefore, I believe, it should be "Gary Oldman as James Gordon: Lieutenant of the Gotham City Police Department and one of the few police officers who are not corrupt."

If this still drives everyone nuts, why not just rephrase it to "Gary Oldman as James Gordon: the non-corrupt Lieutenant of the Gotham City Police Department." After all, if you are the Lieutenant of the Gotham City Police Department, doesn't it follow that you are a police officer? Salamangkero (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretations are, in fact, reversed. The phrase "who is not corrupt" describes the 'few police'. Drop the Gordon is a lieutenant, and you have 'A few police officers who are not corrupt [went for ice cream].' (I hate fragments where a sentence should be) Otherwise we'd have 'Jim Gordon a lieutenant in the force, who is not corrupt', and the police officers part becomes irrelevant. The 'only a few aren't corrupt serves to more accurately describe Gordon's situation as the film opens, and his character. The only relevant question is 'does the phrase '[X] not corrupt' start with 'is' or 'are'; since it modifies the police, a plural noun, it should be 'are'. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(Shrug) I think the only thing this whole discussion demonstrates is that the sentence could be written better. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Just put Gary Oldman as James Gordon, a police leutenint who is one of the few cops on the police force who are not corrupt. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Numbers and Consistency

"As of August 31, 2008, its total worldwide gross stands at $921.700.000. The Dark Knight is currently the highest grossing movie of 2008 in domestic box office and worldwide. Unadjusted for inflation, it is now the second highest grossing film domestically of all time with a total of $504.700.000, as of August 31, 2008, behind only Titanic ($600,788,188)." Why is it switching between decimal numerical notation and regular English notation? And, if it did gross $921,700,000, where did the $504,700,000 number come from? And isn't that more than Titanic's $600,688,188? 172.190.53.223 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the decimal usage. The othe ris fine. It clearly says "domestically", when comparing the numbers, indicating just the 504 million number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD Realease date

If anybody knows when the dark knight will be out on dvd somebody should put it on the article.Xwingdude (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I bought it on DVD on Wednesday (10 September) here in Korea. So I'll add that to the DVD release date section.

....hmmm, I can't add it to the article because there's no "edit this article" tab. Anyhow, the DVD is widely available here as of 10 September. Great quality, too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can leave your source for it being released in Korea so early on the talk page, and someone else will add it for you. Right now the page is disabled for unregistered, or newly registered users.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles

I found these articles and not sure if its something that the article should include. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The first one is from Reuters, which I'd say is a more reliable source than Zap2It. Looks like something that should go in release. I'll add it in. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is from E! Online, I think it has more verifiability than Zap2It. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Reuters is more verifiable than E! Online. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

trouble on page

i've login and when iu come to this page it has my name above top so why is it not there when i go on to the article for i've been here a long time and looked at other articles that had the silver lock on it even gold locks but no problem whys this different here for, whats happened to this articleVeggiegirl (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Dent is Dead.

Can someone update this? It's been confirmed now. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Da gr8 1 (talk • contribs)

I was just about to add that. but I'm guessing the argument could be made that "he's not the creative head etc" so would his words matter? Ahhh, the bottomless pit of endless circular questions which arise from comic book film fans... -- Harish (Talk) - 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated, though was undid by bignole, so reinstated in plot section. Its an important part of the plot, and lies dead is better than appears dead, which indicates hes still alive. EditorGuy07 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've also had producers saying his fate was left ambiguous for a reason. Hence why Eckhart's remarks are good for the cast section, and the plot remains accurate to what actually occurs in the film (which is an ambiguous "death" for Two-Face).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you missed the link where Aaron Eckhart says that Chris Nolan told him that his character was dead... It's linked right above you there. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nolan says he's dead, but the producers say otherwise. You could call that "no consensus" in wikipedese. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And on a general point the plot of any film never requires refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss any such link GhostStalker, I actually read the interview when it first came out. That does not change the fact that the film is a little ambiguous, the producers have said it was intentionally ambiguous. Just because Nolan believes that he will have no use for the character (not to mention that his death was supposed to be truly definitive in the original script) doesn't have anything to do with the plot section of this article (which is based on what the movie shows, not stuff after the fact). Nolan's comment to Eckhart is something relevant to his character in the "Cast/characters" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the preponderance of other "official" material from the film which unambiguously states that he's dead? We're basically keeping this issue open based on an offhand comment made by Emma Thomas, which in the context of the rest of this, seems somewhat overemphasized and potentially out of context. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections are based on what we see in the film. It can be clarified in other sections that Nolan has informed Eckhart that his character is dead, and won't be in another film, but that doesn't change the fact that his character is never actually confirmed dead in this film. Otherwise, you're saying that Michael Bay says Starscream blew up when it left Earth's atmosphere, then we should include that in the Transformers plot, or, better yet, that Barricade is dead even though we never see him take part in any fighting at the end of the film. I've thought he was dead since I saw the film, but my opinion is based on the fact that there will always be some ambiguity to the situation (just because you think Emma Thomas's comments were offhand doesn't change the fact that she made them after the film was released). Eckhart doesn't actually say when he last spoke to Nolan in that interview. It merely says that Nolan told him his character was dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before - the dialogue in the film does confirm that he is dead, even before they discuss covering it up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't know the context of their words, as they were speaking about Harvey Dent. (Playing Devil's Advocate here) Their context could have easily been that Harvey Dent "the man" died (and they may not have been referring to the fall), but that he was replaced by Two-Face "the monster". That's a bit of interpretation based on Gordon and Batman's dialogue exchange. It isn't something mentioned by anyone else after them (though, if Nolan makes another film they may mention that).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy is dead, Eckhart said Nolan said it himself, close discussion and add it to the article. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to jump in, please pay attention to what the topic is discussing. It isn't about whether to include the information, it's about where it should be included. Plot section, or cast and character section. I believe the latter, as this is a well after-the-fact statement made by Nolan to Eckhart, in a private conversation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, that's a negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) which requires speculation and OR to fit. Consider that if Nolan were to make ten more films, none of which mention the character in any way, there would still be "a case" to be made for his being alive. We can't run with that - if evidence exists to show otherwise, then we can change this article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

what kind of stupid conversation is that?! But it in the plot and the cast and characters. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey, please remain civil. Girolamo, we should present it as it is in the film, and in the film he "appears" dead (he isn't conclusively stated to be dead). Nolan says the character is dead to Eckhart, ok, put that in the cast section, specifically saying that "Nolan informed Eckhart that his character is dead and will not return for any future movies".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon says "Now that Harvey's dead..." immediately after the fall and before any talk of a coverup (which Gordon is initially opposed to, as well) - and the devil's advocate argument is a poor one, since Gordon also calls him Harvey throughout the entire standoff. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because Gordon and Batman are not aware of Harvey calling himself "Two-Face". My point was that they could have seen him as a different man, a man that is not "Harvey Dent". I don't remember that exact word use by Gordon, but it makes me wonder why we ever made the section ambiguous to begin with if that's the exact dialogue exchange.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That contradicts your argument - that they're pulling an Obi-Wan by referring to him as "Harvey Dent". And if they weren't aware of such a name, why would they do so? (However , Gordon clearly does know the name, as he's the only person in the movie to use the phrase.) And if he were alive, why are they doing absolutely nothing to take care of him until the EMTs arrive? It doesn't add up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict my argument, you just assumed that I originally meant that they saw him as "Two-Face" (the title). I was using that for the purposes of the argument, so we all understood what I mean when I said "someone else". As for Gordon knowing the name, you're missing the point. Gordon is aware of what the cops used to refer to Harvey, made all the more real when Harvey makes him say it in the hospital. Gordon does know know that Harvey is no longer "Harvey" and is literally assumed the personality (and name) of "Two-Face". If you want to make the argument "why aren't they doing anything for him", then I say "why didn't they even check his pulse to really make sure he was dead?" They just walk up, look at him, and start talking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is hopeless - endless sourced info vs. "well, he could be alive". I give up. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and sorry Bignole.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, he could be. Wrad (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but in a sources vs possiblity fight, the sources usually win, especially on Wikipedia. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But, in this case we have two sources contradicting each other. We have Emma Thomas saying it is intentionally ambiguous in an interview, and then we have Eckhart saying that Nolan told him that his character is dead. Both of which could mean any number of things. Nolan could simply be saying, "don't expect to be in another film. as far as I'm concerned the character is dead." Emma Thomas could be saying, "if we want to bring him back, it's left ambiguous enough that we could easily create a loophole".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll listen to the director not the producer. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll listen to both. I'm with Bignole. 'Appears dead' in plot, 'Nolan told Eckhart the character was dead and wouldn't be used again' in cast. Especially since plot can change if Nolan declines a third film, shopping out the third installment to another who finds a good story in Dent's ongoing bitterness. Plots should only reflect what's seen 'appears dead', i can't recall Gordon saying 'now that Harvey's dead', and i watched it the second time after the previous long debate here, knowing that conversation was coming, and listening for such confirmations.

The cast and production sections, however, speak to the real world intent of those making the film, and there it is fully sensible to put the director's intent and the producer's comment. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should put their comments in the article and leaf him "appeared dead", persummably in Cast and Characters under Dent? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This has always been such a comical debate. And based on successive bits of evidence I've come down on both sides at different times. Yes. I. Am. A. Waffler. But it seems that "sourced" should win over "possibility". This may start to border on original research as basically it's Bignoles interpretation (supported by several others). --FilmFan69 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my "interpretation", as I've stated before, I thought he was dead when I saw the film (always have, still do). The idea of "source trumps possibility" is moot, as there are 2 sources with competing ideas. Now, you can get into who was should go with, but it really isn't our choice to say the director is better than the person supplying the money (or vice versa for that matter), but in all honesty, if Warner Bros says "we want Two-Face back", Nolan can either deal or walk away (the bigger irony is husband and wife with contrasting words). Hence why I prefer the ambigous plot section, and Nolan's words in the cast section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But ambiguity is not the same is as "not dead" - it's a neutral statement. So it's Thomas's word (neutral) and Nolan's (dead) - these aren't contradictory statements. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to pinpoint whether the character died or not, the film itself left that ambiguous so our plot summary should remain ambiguous. The fact that the filmmakers have commented on the character's death is of course important, but it should be mentioned with out-of-universe context (ie, clarifying that the filmmakers confirmed it, not just stating his death as cold hard fact). I agree with Bignole and ThuranX's suggestions for how to convey this information.  Paul  730 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Script says he��dead, novelisation says hes dead, characters say hes dead, "Dent" actor says hes dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNf6T4f_Y_0 and http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38179), director says hes dead (and his brother happens to be the script writer) what more do you need?? - He is dead - appears dead in the article means hes alive, leave it as dead in the article EditorGuy07 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the script was written well before Ledger died. The novelization has not bearing on this film (as novelization can not only change from the film, but are usually based on early drafts of the script). I don't recall the characters literally saying he died . Eckhart said he died because Nolan told Eckhart that (thus, you cannot make that two separate thoughts). Emma Thomas says that he fate (notice how she used the word "fate") was intentionally ambiguous. "Appears dead" does not suggest that he is alive. It means that by appearances, he is dead, unless he otherwise gets up and starts moving again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Eckhart said he died because Nolan told Eckhart that" Exactly - Point, set and match. He's dead because the DIRECTOR says so. What Nolan says outways what a producers believes majorly. I think this ends the duscussion EditorGuy07 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, we don't know when Nolan told Eckhart that. Eckhart didn't say "Nolan told me 20 minutes ago". What he said was that Nolan informed him that his character was dead and wouldn't not be in the next film. That could very well mean that Nolan does not plan to use the character, and as far as HE is concerned the character is dead. Given that Nolan hasn't even agreed to make another film yet, let alone have a story, anything can change as far as that goes. Secondly, if their discussion happened while filming, you have to remember that the original script had Dent's face written as "twisted neck, etc etc" (clear death); that was before Ledger died. Third, Nolan does not control the Batman films outright. He has creative control with the films to an extent. If Warner Bros says, "we want Two-Face" there isn't anything to be said; hence why Thomas stated that his death was ambiguous for a reason. The film does not directly confirm the character as dead (sorry, I don't recall any specific dialogue stating such); Eckhart's words should be displayed in the cast and characters section. Leave the plot section as it is (which is based purely on what the film depicts).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"What he said was that Nolan informed him that his character was dead and wouldn't not be in the next film. That could very well mean that Nolan does not plan to use the character, and as far as HE is concerned the character is dead." Exactly, he's the director, his brother is the script writer, he comes up with the story - end off. "I don't recall the characters literally saying he died", there was a big memorial serice, Gordon talked about what would the people think when they found out what he had done - pretty clear they know hes dead - he was shown dead! He Is Dead EditorGuy07 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Nolan's wife is a producer, and she is the one that said it was intentionally ambigous what does that mean? I mean, you're throwing his brother out there like it means something. We saw a service, the film never actually stated (or showed) that it was a funeral service (you didn't see a casket). We didn't see the character "dead", we saw him lying on the ground. Again, playing Devil's Advocate here, he could have merely been unconscious. Their dialogue about "what if people find out what he did" has no indication of death, it's merely a statement about his actions. Also, please loose the attitude, it is not appropriate for our discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"you're throwing his brother out there like it means something" He's the screenwriter - he wrote the script - yes it does mean something, he knows whats going on. "Also, please loose the attitude" I'm just stating facts - you're just finding ways to get ur own way EditorGuy07 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to your "facts", I'm referring to your use of exclamation marks. Again, the script was written before Ledger died (before filming was complete). Notice how the completed film did not depict Dent's fate exactly the way it was written in the script.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We just need to leave this ambiguous, report on who said what, let the reader decide, and let some time pass for this to clear up. The film isn't even out of theaters yet, we don't need to have an absolute "he's dead" or "he's not dead" right now. It isn't necessary and it would be jumping the gun. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Wrad. This isn't rocket science, folks. We've got people who want to say 'is dead' everywhere and remove a legit source, and people who want to say 'appears dead' in the plot and 'left ambiguous', cited to director's producer wife, and 'is dead' to secondhand comment from Nolan via Eckhart (which, in court, would be hearsay). One gives an audience opinion, the second presents all facts neutrally. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, isnt Wikipedia all about neutral facts? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why the way that BigNole, Wrad, and I support should be used. It presents the facts in neutral fashion within proper context within each section. ThuranX (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone realized how funny it is that Two-face is insisting that he is dead? Hehehehe... [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No...I dont get the joke there. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but after a search, I found the movie script online in PDF[2]. Looks legit. Anyway on page 163 of 167 is says, "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD." DrNegative (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it, but it has been brought up (I don't know about this thread, but in the numerous ones before it). Basically, not only can we not verify the authenticity of the script, even if we could it would not matter. The script is the script and not necessarily something that is adhered to entirely while filming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems accurate, most of the lines are correct, the scenes - and I'm pretty sure the script is the basis of the film. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sequel (again)

http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=8738 Hm? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Written, 2008-05-06, before the release of The Dark Knight. Given that Nolan has stated (after the release of The Dark Knight) that he isn't sure if he'll do another, or what the story is, this article doesn't have any merit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face or Dent

Bignole's recent reversion to changes by ScottDrumr brings up an interesting point. Isn't Harvey's transformation, by the time we reach the end of the film, complete? In other words, just because Gordon and Batman haven't coined a name for Dent, in reality, he is Two-Face. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be only from the poit of view of Gordon and Batman. Our description can be from an omniscient third-person viewpoint. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, does he really start referring to himself as "Two-Face"? A similar incident occurred with Spider-Man 3, where some editors were changing Eddie Brock to Venom, when no one in the film actually refered to him as Venom when acknowledging his presence. The only times I remember "Two-Face" being used was when Dent demanded that Gordon speak the name that the officers had for him when he was a young attorney. I don't recall him ever using it after that, or it even being mentioned again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we know he's Two-Face, and he can be called that in the cast section, but it is very clear that all the characters are talking to Dent, so I'm for leaving it as Dent. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But my point is that, from our perspective, we're omniscient, and we know he's Two-Face. Irrespective of whether or not the characters have coined a name for him. But the fact that Dent brings up the name when talking to Gordon seems to imply that he was thinking of himself that way. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but, from my understanding of the MOS, plot summaries are supposed to be in-universe; therefore, calling him Two-Face in the plot summary would be going out-of-universe. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about that, but what they should not do is incorporate the editors knowledge of what "is", over what is "presented". He is not presented in the film as "Two-Face", beyond that quick little jab at the name while in the hospital. Just like in Spider-Man 3, Eddie is never presented as "Venom", even though the credits list the name and we all know as the audience who the character is. Unfortunately, what WE know from our own historical knowledge of who the character is, does not supercede the fact that the film never calls him such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he ever refer to himself as Dent, either? Wrad (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Other characters call him Dent, even after he takes on the classic "Two-Face" look (think Gordon yelling at Batman "I have to save Dent!" and Batman telling Gordon near the end that people can't know about Dent). He never refers to himself as Two-Face, I remember that much. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. He does refer to himself as Two-Face when talking to Gordon. He talks about how they used to call him Two-Face back in the day and now that name fits.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the part where we all said, "other than the hospital scene where Dent demands that Gordon say the name". The difference is, he doesn't actually start making people call him that. When he meets the cop in the bar, the cop is calling him "Dent", and he never corrects him. Everyone still calls him Dent, and he never corrects them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS was cited earlier with as a reason to keep Dent's name and not use Two-Face but I read the MOS for film and found nothing of the sort. At the bottom of that page it references the MOS for fiction which I read as well. I culled the following from the two articles:

• "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

• "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

• "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director."

• "Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced."

As I read it, there's nothing specifying one way or another how one should treat the plot. In fact, it seems that the MOS encourages the third-person perspective. I included the sentences about themes to show that in general, we need to consider the real-world context. Since nothing exists in the WP:Plot section this is the closest we come to a direcive. The way I see it, it's wrong to place this much emphasis on what the characters are calling Dent. Our perspective, according to MOS is more important here. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The established way to write the plot section has long since been to follow what the film shows, and not what your interpretation (or previously knowledge) is. Please note that the last two things on theme say nothing about "our perspective". What they state is that themes can be things that professional writers see, but that the film's creators did not intend (which has nothing to do with the names of a character. If Roger Ebert watched The Dark Knight and felt that Dent was really the thematical embodiment of Zeus, we wouldn't change his name to "Zeus" throughout the plot section, or any other section for that matter). There is a difference between incorporating information that was not intended by the creators, and another to change what the creators did to satisfy the fanboy's dreams of seeing Two-Face on the screen. The fact remains that the film never calls him such. We don't call Eddie Brock "Venom" in the Spider-Man 3 plot; we didn't go back to the Spider-Man plot and change the name of the carjacker to David Carridine when it was revealed in the third film; Liam Neeson is known as "Henri Ducard" for all of the Batman Begins plot, until the moment that he actually reveals that his name IS Ra's Al Ghul. Otherwise, since we know that Neeson's character is Ra's from the start (after watching the film), by your theory we should swap out "Ducard" because that really isn't his name. As a matter of fact, I say we remove the "calling himself 'Two-Face'" from the following statement--"Dent, calling himself "Two-Face", goes on a personal vendetta confronting the cops and mobsters one by one, deciding their fates with the flip of a coin."--as we've established that he never actually "calls himself" that. What he does is make a passing reference to the fact that the police officers nicknamed him that and now it is fitting given his disfigurement. He does not assume that name once he breaks out of the hospital.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, best not to use the Ducard/Ra's example for Batman Begins, as there is currently a debate over there about whether or not to continue calling him Ducard after the reveal that he is really Ra's. But, yeah, everything else you said seems pretty solid (although I'm guessing somewhere in the Spider-Man film article the carjacker is named David Carradine?) On a different note, could someone please tell ThuranX not to get "offended" by me putting this comment here, where I am clearly responding to Bignole and not to him? Now he has moved this comment somewhere and called my edit putting it back here "vandalism" which I simply will not stand for. All this is is a response to Bignole. Pure and simple. And yet he tells me to "bring it on" and calls me a vandal. OVER A STUPID PLACEMENT OF A COMMENT. And before anyone tries to tell me about 3RR, I have added to this comment because I am not interested in getting an stupid edit war over something stupid with someone who appears to get insulted easily. Removing this section now would clearly be considered vandalism. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So if it's established how come it's not a part of MOS. You're telling me it's long established but maybe that should be set in stone. You name several examples but I'll be willing to bet there are plenty of example that don't in fact follow this pattern. And why they don't follow the pattern would be that there's no MOS to guide that practice. --FilmFan69 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The general policies and guidelines cover this in as far as that supposing a pseudonym (rather than a nickname) on the basis of source material rather than substantive content within the film and its supporting materials itself would be considered original research. Beyond that, it is unreasonable to suppose that Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and MOS could ever comprehensively and unambiguously resolve every possible issue regarding the summarization of human knowledge, and thus for exactly this purpose consensus needs to be established, but only upon a firm groundwork based on larger existing and applicable policies and guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan, the reason the MOS doesn't state such a thing is because it is miniscule in the overall goal of the guideline. Specifying such minute details would border on WP:CREEP. Instead, we allow other guidelines and policies to handle vague and/or small issues that would otherwise bog down a general MOS page. In this case, assuming that he is called "Two-Face" in the film simply because we know that is who the character is in comic book lore would be original research. The name "Two-Face" is in the cast section, as even the director refers to him as such, but in regards to what actually occurs in the film itself, no one in the film refers to him as "Two-Face" (again, beyond that little dialogue exchange where Dent makes the comment that their nickname for him has literal meaning now). To put it another way; had their nickname for him been "Turn Coat", which detaches from the mythology of the character, would you still be fighting to change the subsequent naming for the character to "Turn Coat"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense but I feel like you play the WP:OR card whenever you disagree with someone else's interpretation of the guidelines. And they didn't call him Turn Coat so why bother with a silly example like that? --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, it's not just lore. It's the character's name, the director refers to him as such, the producers refer to him as such, they say the name in the film. That's about as far from WP:OR as you can get. --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The director, producers and stars can call him whatever they want when promoting the film, or talking about the film. However the plot is based on what is seen on screen, and on screen he is Dent to the end. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan, again, everyone involved in Spider-Man 3 called Grace's character "Venom". Hell, that name even appears in the credits, yet it is never once uttered in the film. Second, if you don't understand the purpose of an analogy (my "silly example"), then I cannot help you. You're letting your bias (previous knowledge of how the character is identified) cloud your judgement on how to present the character in this section. The key part of what you said was, "they say the name". They also say "Dark Knight", but we aren't substituting that for "Batman" all over the place. They might "say" the name, but they don't actually call him "Two-Face". Even in the hospital scene, Gordon does not call him "Two-Face", he merely recounts the name. Technically, it is OR, it's just a more specific kind called synthesis: where you take multiple sources and use them to back a different argument. The argument is, "what is his name in the film", not, "what is the name of the character is the Batman mythology". In the film, he goes by "Harvey Dent" from start to finish, and no where in there does he stop and say, "My name is 'Two-Face'". It's as simple as that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what an analogy is but thanks for the unnecessary English lesson.. When it's presented as an obviously snide remark then I think it useless to the discussion at hand. I am also aware that they "say Dark Knight" but it's not listed as such in the credits so I'm not arguing that point. Another throughly useless example from you - but thanks anyway. My judgement is not clouded - I'm simply trying to explore the options here. You ignored valid points by only picking one and calling it my "key" argument. It wasn't. I made several points that clearly show that we need to approach this from outside the universe of the film itself. It HELPS the reader if the character is named correctly. To someone who didn't know ANYTHING about the film, they would wonder why there's a character called Two-Face who doesn't seem to make an appearance in the plot. You are probably more guilty of clouded judgement as you can't seem to approach this from an objective viewpoint - that of someone unfamiliar with the material. I could just as easily accuse you of squatting on the page as you history shows that you resist any change to the page that doesn't agree with your own interpretation. It's not "as simple as that" buddy. But to you it is and you always win. So once again... Congratulations! You still own the page! Yaaaaaay! --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're saying it helps the reader if we name the character something that he is not named in the film? That makes a lot of sense, given that he is only ever called "Harvey Dent" in the entirety of the film. My objective point of view is that I'm basing my opinion on what the film actually shows, not who the character is supposed to be. In the film, does Harvey Dent ever say that his name is Two-Face? Do any of the characters ever acknowledge him as Two-Face in the film (the bit in the hospital is not an acknowledgement of who he is)? There answe ris "no" to both of those, so why would we call him something that he is never called in the film? That doesn't make any sense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. The character is named Harvey Dent/Two-Face. If someone read the plot and knew none of the back story they'd wonder why the plot section refers to him as Dent the whole time if in the cast list his character is called Harvey Dent/Two-Face. You're the one not making any sense. And I know you're not this dumb so don't act like you don't get what I'm saying. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the character is "credited" as "Harvey Dent/Two-Face". The character is not "named" that. Why would the plot just switch from "Dent" to "Two-Face"? Since he never actually starts referring to himself that way, wouldn't the reader wonder why the plot just starts referring to him by that name? We cannot say, "Now calling himself 'Two-Face'", because he never does that, so it would draw more confusion to switch for no apparent reason than it would for a reader to go to the cast section and see "Harvey Dent/Two-Face" and wonder what they name isn't in the plot section. Especially when they can click the link and follow it to the Two-Face page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec):No apparent reason?! Are you daft? His character is named - oh, wait - sorry - "credited" as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. You seem to think the reader would wonder "why the sudden switch"...well it's equally possible that the reader would wonder why he's "credited" as something that NEVER gets mentioned in the plot. How can you possibly think that is sound judgement and be so supposedly baffled by what I'm saying? You very well could make reference to his character's transformation with an acknowledgement that in the film, it is verbally referenced only once. Not doing so is to obfuscate the true plot. And don't come at me with WP:OR or SYNTHESIS. I don't need a lecture. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They make a passing reference to "Two-Face", that still does not make sense as to why you would just suddently start calling him by a nickname that was only mentioned and never actually used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the glaring fact that he's credited as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. If it was a nickname that didn't appear in the credits then, yeah, I would see your point. But thats not the case here. Regardless of whether or not it get's mentioned more than once in the film, that's his character's name. If I had never seen the story, read the cast list and then read the plot, I would be confused as to why this actor was credited with a role that doesn't get mentioned in the plot summary. Not knowing the story I would begin to think that the cast list was in error or that someone deleted a plot point because they thought it would be a spoiler. If Nolan had seen fit to not credit him as Harvey Dent/Two-Face and chose only "Harvey Dent" then I could also see omitting the name from the plot. But this is also not the case. You're position does not make sense from the perspective of a reader coming to the plot from an outside perspective. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So what if he is credit as that, he isn't called that. If someone didn't stay for the credits of the movie, and had not Earthly idea of who the characters was in the comics, they would wonder why you are switching his name for no reason in the plot section. You seem to be the only one arguing for this, with many others tell you the same thing I have said repeatedly (and have no intention of saying again beyond this post). No one in the film does he call himself "Two-Face". He makes a comment that the nickname the cops had for him seems fitting for his appearance, and that is where it ends. Just like in Spider-Man 3, where Topher Grace is credited as "Eddie Brock/Venom", but no where in the movies does he ever actually use that name, no where does Dent actually start calling him that. Because of that, it makes no logical sense to start referring to him as "Two-Face" based solely on the fact that he is "credited" as that. The credit has no bearing on what actually occurred in the film. I have had enough of this circular argument. You have yourself a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"So what"? How are the credits not relevant? It's the character's name - as stipulated by the director! What world do you live in where the credit don't matter? Digging in your heels does not bolster your faulty logic either. But this is just like you Bignole. Once you decide your argument is the best, you don't listen to reason. So...yes...walk away. But you know I'm right, you just can't admit it. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok this argument is ridiculous both ways! how about we just do what they did to Eddie Brock in the Spiderman 3 section? by just having it, Harvey Dent/Two-Face? that way, you know that he's both?, the fact is, we all know that he's Two-Face. He may have not been called it on screen, but he is weather we like it or not, so just put both?Onepiece226 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

I'd be fine with that... --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so after Dent's Accident, he'll be known as in the plot section as Dent/Two-Face. Sounds good?Onepiece226 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

Fine by me. It covers both viewpoints. [OnePiece - I took out the leading space on your post to fix the formatting. Hope thats ok.] --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having it as Dent/Two-Face is clunky-looking. I would also add that in the plot section for Spider-Man 3, nowhere does it say "Eddie Brock/Venom". So, I am opposed to saying "Dent/Two-Face" or "Two-Face" anywhere in the plot section. The reader will be smart enough to realize from reading the plot description and the lead that Dent and Two-Face are the same person. Having it in the plot section is out of context. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Anakinjmt, considering Two-Face isn't mentioned in the lead either I seriously doubt that a reader could surmise that Dent is Two-Face. So your argument is moot. A reader would still be confused. Smart or not. --FilmFan69 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, as one would think it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. But, even so, if the click on "Harvey Dent" they'll get taken to Two-Face. And he IS a well-known villain. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But to assume prior knowledge is to do a disservice to the reader. You should assume that the reader is coming to the article in need of info, not with info in hand. So then I move that we add something to the lead and then we can leave the plot alone.--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[of course Bignole has walked off the set so to speak so does anybody want to ask him his opinion on adding a reference to the lead in lieu of adding it to the plot? He has ceased to deal with me as he thinks my arguments are circular. (see above) --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter weather he is known as Two-Face or not in the comics. He is never referred to as Two-Face (maybe Harvey Two-Face, but never just Two-Face) so he should be plainly considered Harvey Dent. And again, even though he asks Gordon what name they referred to him as in the hospital scene, that was simply a reference to the comics so people wouldnt get mad that the name Two-Face wasn't at least mentioned. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that last sentence? --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article, and part of the article speaks of the character from an OOU perspective (in which case, he is referred to as "Two-Face" in most of those exchanges), so using 'Two-Face' in the lead would be appropriate. Plus, the first sentence in the "Cast and characters" section for Dent states: "The Gotham district attorney who is hailed as Gotham's 'White Knight'; Dent's battle with the Joker transforms Dent into a murderous, disfigured vigilante called 'Two-Face'." - That probably would easily explain any confusion a reader might have when they see "Harvey Dent/Two-Face" in that section, as it is right beside said title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the lead - I added Two-Face in parentheses next to Harvey Dent. {EDIT: actually a slash - the parentheses looked like hell}--FilmFan69 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It just doesnt seem right for us to call him Two-Face if he is never called Two-Face. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 10:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if he's called Two-Face if he IS two-face?68.1.168.231 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

But technically, HE ISN'T in TDK. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically he is. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he got half of his face blown up he's automatically Two-Face? What about Darkman? Half of his face got deformed. Is he Two-Face? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Jokes are supposed to be funny--FilmFan69 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is whether we call him Two-Face anywhere in the plot section, right? As long as it's made clear in the lead and cast section (which it is), then we can forgo calling him Two-Face in the plot, since he's not. The way it is now looks fine to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And I'm fine with the compromise actually. Though, I may be able to get it to read better. It is a tad inelegant at this point. But I think, ironically enough, User:Two-Face is not happy with this.... --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Think next time you type, FilmFan69. It wasnt a joke. Darkman's face (or at least a character in it) is half-scarred, like Two-Face. He is NOT Two-Face in TDK, wether it is the character he's based on or not. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be against you, dude. Two-Face is in TDK. I suppose next you'll say Venom wasn't in Spider-Man 3? Consensus appears to have been reached, so unless you can come up with something new to add, I suggest you not try anymore. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Harvey, you make no sense? The fact that this IS a Batman movie, and it IS made by DC comics means that when a district attorney named Harvey Dent gets half of his face deformed/burned, he IS Two-Face! He may not get called it, but he IS. And it dosent matter about other characters who get half charred faces that are not in any Batman movies! Look at Spiderman 2, in the movie, Doc Ock is only reffered to as Doc Ock by the newspaper headlines! Spiderman calls him by his real name, Octavious. In TDK Dent was said by Gordan that they called him Harvey Two Face, but Batman calls him Dent. But they still seem to call Octavious Doc Ock?Onepiece226 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)OnePiece226

No further discussion is needed on this section. Consensus was reached and there is a happy medium now in the article with the people that wanted the name and the ones that did not want the name listed anywhere but the cast section. There is no need to chit chat about this any further.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Scarecrow

Murphy's role is just a cameo, so shouldn't he be in the paragraph wit hall the other minor characters. He has no real impact on the plot, he shows up and gets arrested.76.241.90.96 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Awards

It has just received an award for best superhero film on the national film awards in the UK. Christian Bale was nominated for best actor and lost to Johnny Depp (sp?) Should an awards section be added? - (rushdadj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.219.112 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What award? Throw us a ref. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a ref [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.219.112 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not notable? It won an award, and unless it's something such as a dog show, it seems pretty notable. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The award is not notable, winning it is not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Modifications

I find that if I don't justify my changes then somebody will come along and undo them. I have added minor details about the Joker's actions in TDK. The amount of money he stole was $68,000,000 Lau tells us as much in the film. I have also tried to separate out a key plot point Lau had the bulk of the money (4 out of the 5 mob banks). The Joker only stole one of the five deposits. I also added the fact that Batman is wearing body armor, otherwise I felt this leds to impression that he was seriously injured. Lucius Fox described the new Batsuit as being "Hardened Kevlar plates on a titanium fiber tri-weave for flexibility..." Including the fact that he was wearing armor may explain why he was able to tackle Dent after he was shot. As for references, apart from seeing the film, I've got a link to the TDK script if someone wants to put it up. [4]. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs)

we discussed the stript in the "Harvey Dent is Dead" section. The script seems accurate to me. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The line about "burns Lau along with half of the mob's money" is incorrect and should be updated. The Joker burns ALL of the mobs money. He is making a joke about only lighting fire to half of the pile of money, but of course all of it will burn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrison1138 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Joke? WTH? He was being serious, he was really only burning his half --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence so that it is less defined by what he actually means. But, to clarify, he did burn "his half", as in he set fire to "his half" ...which happened to be laying next to the mob's half, thus burning everyone's really.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

In the end of the summary it says that Dent is preparing to decide on the boys fate, but isn´t he deciding on Gordons fate? I think Gordon asked him to spare his son and Dent "agreed" and was about to shoot him (Gordon). Might be wrong, but perhaps someone could check it... 89.246.42.27 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon was trying to persuade him, but Dent never let the boy go and he still had the gun pointed at the boy the whole time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Gordon asked Dent to punish him and Dent replied that he will, by killing his son. Andi (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was for Gordon's son. He pointed the gun to the boy's head and flipped his coin. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

i think i can help now

can i edit here now? Boggydark (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you can provide good info...I guess. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been a very naughty boy(?). But if you behave...have at it. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Sequel

Just to let you know that there are hundreds of websites talking about the Dark Knight sequel. Questions like will Harvery Dent/Two-Face be the next villain, the casting of Catwoman and the Riddler, the Joker having a cameo, will Robin appear, or even the title of the next sequel. I know this page is super-long, but can we at least have it on the page. Because I'm ready to share them as soon as I can find them. Christianster45 21:25, 4 October 2008 9)

Batman (film series)#Future. Alientraveller (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

and wasnt Dent confirmed dead, Robin not appearing at all, and I already tried twice to proof that there even will be one. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!); 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the archives, I think there's been evidence both ways on the Dent situation. As for Robin, Bale won't do a Batman film if there is a Robin.[5] Granted that's not a terrific source, but seems to come up on Google a bit. Latics (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

The size of this section is utterly ridiculous. Fanboys doing their best to assure everyone of what a slice of genius it really is. The section is ludicrious in comparison for reception sections of other films and must be trimmed immediately.

I agree, but I think you need to calm down just a bit. You're acting like this page has offended you personally in some way, I don't see how that could be. Also, please do not personally attack other editors, not even generally (your "fanboys" comment), that is uncouthe and not tolerated at Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're insulted by the word "fanboy", best check yo'delf. The section's too long. End. 79.71.215.203 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical run —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.241.4 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read through the critical reception section; I'm not concerned with it's length, but I don't think it's well-organized. Every paragraph is a summary of one critic's review, then saying that Denby didn't like it. Why not just let his reception have a paragraph of his own instead of trying to put a damper on the positive reviews? Bclare (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's both too long and a bit disorganized. Gary King (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

We need a spolier alert here... this would have ruined it for me had I not seen the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.102.22 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't seen the movie, why would you read the plot section? Spoilers are obviously going to be placed in a section titled "Plot", that's why we don't put spoiler alerts up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

lawsuit

a lawsuit has been filed by the mayor of BATMAN, Turkey. According to him, the Warner Bros. Studios and the director Christopher Nolan should give him money because they have used his city's name without any prior permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymoodz (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That is really, really, really, really, really stupid.--198.237.219.34 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Batman, Turkey#Legal Action. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release

The DVD for the movie has been successfully ripped and is being distributed by torrent sites. It's currently the file with most people downloading on The Pirate Bay. Should this be added to the main article or would it just be encouraging people to go download it? Prunch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankrenehan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Every movie gets pirated. This isn't news, this isn't wiki-worthy. You might as well be telling people the sky is blue. CritCol (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that if the film is being ripped in particularly large quantities, or outdownloaded, or whatever it is, at a peculiarly large rate, then that may be note worthy (if such numbers can be gleaned from a credible source). Pirchlogan (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

box office

why did it go from 998 million back to 995 million? Was there an error or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.60.23.12 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Awards

Why isnt there a list of awards won by TDK in this article? It should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.72.147 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman 3

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-dc-comics-president-gives-superman-update-5511 --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Blu Ray release

Theres a Blu Ray version of this film coming out soon, this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.233.168 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is already in the article, in the "Home release" section. LovesMacs (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Ain't It Cool News the release of the Blue Ray version of The Dark Knight (film) is announced for Tuesday, December 9, 2008 in USA by Christopher Nolan. ¹ Maybe this reference should be added to the article.

¹ "^" "Ain't It Cool News". Retrieved, December 7, 2008. [6]

Sha-Sanio (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

relevance?

The filming section says: "The city's walled city of Kowloon influenced the Narrows in Batman Begins.[81]" This is cool, but probably not relevant to the article, more to the Begins film. Wrad (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Plot Details

"Batman leaves to save Rachel, while Gordon and the police head after Dent"... I believe it is the other way round. Beau Martinez (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Joker lied, that's why Batman saved Dent when both men knew Rachel should have lived. Alientraveller (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This refers to intent. Batman left to save Rachael, however when he arived he found he'd been sent to the other location. If you read the paragraph in full: Batman leaves to save Rachel, while Gordon and the police head after Dent. ... Batman arrives to save Rachel but instead finds Dent, having realized the Joker gave him reversed addresses. I think it's fine.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Awards and nominations" split

The section is getting rather long, as there seems to be 50,000 different associations and people handing out awards and nominations for films. I'm beginning to think that the section needs to split into separate article, or possibly someone needs to weed out the minor associations that are nominating the film. –  LATICS  talk  05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Right now, the article might appear large, but the critical reception section needs trimming (it's trying to encompass almost every review, and it needs to be summarized better). The awards, because there are so many, either need to be presented in prose form or need a table where they can be more neatly organized.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Had a really uneventful Sunday so I decided to tackle this. Hope it's ok!HansTAR (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

Has anyone considered making this article a featured article, which will be on wikipedia's main page? travb (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary missing numerous important themes

I think it needs a more detailed summary, as this one is barely a bare-bones look at the movie. It never mentions the police corruption, which is arguably the biggest theme in the movie (it fits in with corruption). One area it can be improved on is where Dent is let out of the hospital.

"The Joker goes to the hospital and convinces Dent to exact revenge on the corrupt cops and mobsters responsible for Rachel's death, as well as Batman and Gordon.

After sparing the Joker, Dent goes on a personal vendetta confronting Maroni and the corrupt cops one by one, deciding their fates with the flip of a coin."

The Joker doesn't convince Dent to exact revenge, he convinces him that the police are the ones who did this to him. He plays on his earlier anger over police corruption. He also convinces him that chaos is better than order, because chaos is fair. This plays in with Dent's coin, which used to be one sided but has two since it was burned. The coin is completely fair now. The coin flip is how he decides who to kill, and he doesn't kill the Joker because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries aren't meant to retell the entire story. They exist to give context to the rest of the article, and that's that. As for themes, you'd need citations, not just your opinions about what the major themes are. ThuranX (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well what good is a wrong plot summary? We can summarize this movie as The Joker is evil and everyone else is good and Batman wins, but that would not be an accurate plot summary now would it? I've seen more in-depth summaries on Wikipedia, and this is supposed to be THE movie of 2008. So why give it a wrong and short summary? I hardly think it is retelling the story, more like providing more insight. And you want me to need citations and not opinions? Watch the movie, that's my citation. I don't see a citation ANYWHERE on that plot summary, but suddenly I can't mention police corruption? What are you doing even checking the talk page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to need citations, I don't care what you need or want. The article, however ,would need citations, to expand on the themes. After that, the corruption could be more emphasized in the plot section. However, the police corruption is a small part of the film, more of a plot vehicle than a major theme, only appearing when the plot needed to move, be it getting the mob out of trouble so batman could go to hong kong, or positioning the hostages. Both could've been done in other ways. Bring us articles and citation, and we can help you shape your ideas. ThuranX (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this article's summary does not need any citations, so why do the themes need citations? Answer that one. The police corruption is a SMALL part of the film? You are this article's watch dog, and you are calling the police corruption a SMALL part? It's only one of the two reasons The Joker can wreck the havoc he does. That's how Harvey Dent is captured, how Rachel is killed, how Barbara at the end is captured. How The Joker gets the hospital threat to work. I mean there's so many examples, it's a MAJOR PLOT THEME. You can't deny that without being a "This is MY article, I REFUSE to accept any suggestions on how to improve it" Wikipeida Archetype. And, aren't the things that move the plot the, you know, important parts of the movie? What movie doesn't have a plot that moves? You are making no sense. Look dude, if you just want to say "This is my article go away I won't allow any changes" then do so, but making up these lame excuses is pathetic. You still won't admit that the summary is WRONG. Unless you downloaded some bootleg version of Batman.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk • contribs)

First, register an account. Second, at no point have I asserted ownership. Third, themes are real world content, and need citations. Themes are the bigger ideas integral to the story that the writer tells. To address them in the article, you'd need citations. The plot summary only exists to give a framework on which to build the real world content, it's primary purpose is NOT to retell the entire story. Plot summaries are limited in length by multiple Wikipedia guidelines and essays to avoid exactly that. In order to validate the massive expansion you posit, you'd need to be clear about the theme you seek to incorporate into the article. After that, you could see about expanding the plot to accommodate the reader's understanding of the new theme. Thank you for your understanding. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(personal attacks redacted)

One length that we're going to is that an administrator (hi!) is going to come in and remind everyone involved that a) we don't comment on contributors, we comment on the content and we stay civil in those comments, which wasn't the case in the comment I've just removed, and b) we do in fact need citations and should have a lot more than there are in this article at present. Plot summaries really should be cited more than they are; ThuranX makes a good point that it needs to be backed up by guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Persist in the personal attacks and I'll seek a block of your IP. I addressed the real issues above. Your failure to understand them is not my problem. I've explained to you how this article, and many on Wikipedia are written. I really do not understand why, instead of listening to what I've said and doing some research, you're insistent on just having your way, despite the fact that 'your way' would contravene some of the basic guidelines and principle of Wikipedia, as well as the consensus on this article. The plot summary, by the way is right. You feel it omits details that you, on a personal level, want to see included. That's not 'wrong', the word for that, at best, is 'incomplete'. All that stuff about fairness and the coin is what you took away from the story, not what the writers put in, unless you can find proof the writers put it in.

Writing for Wikipedia is more like writing a research paper than blogging or an internet forum. If you cannot cite it, you cannot include it. Perhaps it's simply that you are unfamiliar with that style of writing. I suggest you head over to the Help Desk and look around there for more on how to write an article. That might help.

As for my 'post changing', I haven't edited any of my comments here in a revisionist manner, and the thrust of my responses changed because you immediately became a hostile jackass, yelling at me that we're all 'wrong' and only you know the truth. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is his article. I came here to try and fix it, and I got attacked by him. He said I needed citations to make changes to it. I told him there weren't any. So why isn't the existing, WRONG information removed? Why isn't someone here trying to fix it? Why am I being told I'm wrong when I'm the only one pointing out that this citation-lacking article needs work? And where is your reprimanding of him? Just because he ran to get you doesn't mean he gets off scott free. This whole thing happened because of him. The personal attacks I made on him are justified. --- As for the message above that appeared mid-typing, read what I wrote above for parts of it. The line about fairness is IN the movie dude, you seriously haven't seen it have you? I can't argue with you. You refuse to believe anything, yet defend a citationless article. It's complete hypocrisy. I was going to stop trying to talk to you before you removed my "personal attacks". This whole nonsense over my lack of citations is a moot point considering this article lacks citations as well. It's like you are free to add citation-less material, but I am not. And how else can I see it? That is what is going on. And you don't CARE to add something about the themes. I posted my talk post to get people talking about adding and changing stuff in the article, and all that happened was YOU attacked ME. Thats why I put it here, in the talk page, to TALK. Not editing the article blindly. You could try and be nicer. You could try and be a lot nicer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk • contribs)

Let me clarify something. I have had no contact with ThuranX - I saw this while doing recent changes patrol and came in on my own hook. Second, if you feel that personal attacks are justified at any time on Wikipedia, you're on the wrong website. No personal attacks is one of the core policies on Wikipedia. My note above was directed at both of you, asking that you both calm down and discuss the topic more constructively. I highly suggest that you find references for your viewpoints, and ThuranX, I suggest that you find some for the existing material, and that the tone on this talk page become far less combative immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to discuss this topic. I can see how No Personal Attacks is a rule, but in my view he attacked me immediately. There may be no profanity, but it was not helpful and extremely rude. So why limit Personal Attacks to just curse words? I chose my words carefully as well. And I doubt I'm on the wrong website, as I followed the rules of coming to the talk page with material I wanted to discuss and not editing the page blindly. The people who keep watch over the page are the ones who aren't following the rules, as we've already established its lack of citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you feel your comments have been subject to personal attack. ThuranX's first reply to you was completely civil, and it was only after your somewhat antagonised reply to that comment that this degenerated into what we see now. However, I can see how you felt that your ideas were dismissed out of hand, and perhaps a more in-depth reply to you at the start would have avoided all that. In Wikipedia film articles, it is generally accepted that the plot summary should be a bare bones description of the plot, enough to only give readers enough context to understand the rest of the article. This is for quite practical reasons. For a start, were the plot section to include every perceived theme that The Dark Knight explored, it would become quite bloated, and only serve to obscure the basic contextual information that it is supposed to present. For another, there is Wikipedia's policy on original research. In the context of a film article, this prevents editors from presenting their own theories and analyses of the film. What seems "obvious" to one editor is plain wrong to another. That is why for this kind of thing, citations to a reliable secondary source are required for most additions to Wikipedia. Primary sources (in this case, the film itself) are allowed for basic descriptions, as long as no editor interpretation is involved (for example, you can say that "Character X shoots Character Y", but not "Character X feels betrayed and somewhat aroused by Character Y's actions, and so shoots him" without a citation or direct reference in the film that this is why it happened). With that in mind, we generally keep the plot sections concise, creating a separate section on the themes if necessary. As an example, take a look at what I did at Changeling (film), which presents its sub 700-word plot summary, with its "Themes" section later on. Again, due to the policy on original research, this section must only contain interpretations from reliable secondary sources, no matter how obvious some of it must seem to you or me. For a film such as The Dark Knight, which has generated so much comment and analysis in hundreds of such sources, this should not prove a barrier. I hope this explanation has helped. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, can I have some help in the themes section of The Dark Knight before I am dismissed as a citationless fool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been nothing but formal and constructive throughout, and resent the insinuation that I'm provoking all this, Tony. As for the existing article, with 203 unique sources and at a glance, about 300 points of citation, this is hardly an uncited article. The anonymous IP is free to add Citation tags where they feel a controversial statement is unsupported, but it hardly falls to me to be the mop and bucket crew at the same time I'm trying to explain all of wikipedia's polices to someone who wants to add their own opinion and synthesis to the article. ThuranX (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You have lied, not cared about this, and been spewing random things to get me to go away. You have not even tried to be helpful and just been filibustering your way to get rid of me. How have you been formal OR constructive? You've provoked this from the start. And you know that "anonymous IP", while being what I am, (though hardly able to understand how an IP address also makes me anonymous) is an insulting term on Wikipedia, and people who do not log in are looked down on. So there goes your claim at being formal, just two sentences after it. Now, the plot, I do not know how to fix. I cannot for the life of me think of a reliable source that can explain the plot. It's just there. Like, how am I supposed to cite that to your satisfaction? I watched it. "The Joker goes to the hospital and convinces Dent to exact revenge on the corrupt cops and mobsters responsible for Rachel's death, as well as Batman and Gordon. After sparing the Joker," This is just a lie. It is misleading the reader. It's not what what happens. This plot summary makes Two Face a different character at a pivotal part of the movie. This is WHERE Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face. This should be something that we, as The Dark Knight fans, feel is one of the movie's climaxes. Harvey turns his face and you see what he has become. And you are content to lie to make it fit into a sentence? Does no one else feel that explaining what happens here is important? Sure it's a summary, but it's also one of the most important parts of the movie, and I don't need citations to prove that. Look, I did not come here trying to cause a fight. I simply wanted to see the reactions people give to editing the article in two ways - the plot summary, and themes. And all you have done is say "NO.", "NO." and "GO AWAY WITHOUT CITATIONS." That is not constructive, or formal.

But none of that matters. I'm not here to fight, or am I interested in preserving your ego. It seems apparent that the Plot Summary will stay the way it is for the sake of length and conciseness, but no one can just dropkick my Themes idea out of the realm of discussion. I think this movie does have themes, and that an encyclopedia entry on it should cover them. So let's stop fighting, or throwing around who did whats, and focus on improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Size Matters!

Kia Ora, I would like to suggest a general prune of the article:

• Creating a Cast & Characters Main Article with the current descriptions / information, and changing to a simple cast list in current article
• Creating an Awards / Critical Reception Main Article that features the current table (nice table btw), and the expansive Critical section, while including a smaller sample of reviews & awards in current article

At last check, the article is currently 119kb, as compared to The Godfather (57kb), & Shawshank Redemption (I think roughly 25kb?). Seeing as there has been a bit of disagreement and hot temper in the discussion page (and noting the protection status), would like to see a consensus before undertaking. Also open to suggestions. Cheers Nait2k4 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the sectioning you propose match what's seen in the articles you reference, and are they FA-level articles? If so, I'd support your suggestions. I do wonder if those sections alone would be enough to reduce this article to the more accepted 40K suggestion? ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar sectioning in both articles, more concise. Neither page splits the article at these points, but I am reluctant to suggest mass information deletion (especially when it is so well referenced). Neither article is Featured-status (AFAIK), but am happy to look at any FAs you can think of that would work as a template. Cheers Nait2k4 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT - 300 (film) & Blade Runner have been featured and currently run about 75k, but again, much less in the way of Critic/Cast extrapolation.

(ec) I don't think splitting the article into different sections is a good idea (right now). The critical reception definitely needs to be cut down (which about 100 users have said but no one has actually bothered to do it), and creating subpages would create too many problems. I say just leave it, and reconsider this in a few months (or weeks). Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is only 51kb long (readable prose, per WP:SIZE measurement...and I didn't even remove all that I was supposed to remove to determine that number). I.E. It does not need to be split at all. The Critical Reception section needs serious pruning, and that's about it. Nothing needs to be split (SIZE does not even propose that one should split an article until 60kb, and even then it says that readability might warrant a longer article). I would oppose any suggestion of splitting at this time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. That's my mistake. I apologize, I didn't inquire about the numbers presented above. If it's 51K actual reading length, then I don't see a reason to change the structure. Thanks to Bignole for providing that all-important qualification. mea Culpa.ThuranX (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool Bananas. I shudder everytime I think about editing Critical Reception, will try to give it a whack over xmas. Thanks for the feedback! :) Nait2k4 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, to be honest. What bloated the section was the extended commentary related to Klavan's remarks. This is more analysis than a standard review, so I've separated the cites related to this into a separate sub-section. Properly expanded, this can form the basis of a fully-fledged standalone "Themes" section at some point. I've made some other tweaks, and as it stands now, I don't think the section is as daunting as it was a moment ago. Comments and suggestions welcome. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks for taking that on, Steve!ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice in the page history that Alientraveller had already cut out most of the dead wood from the section. I just swept up the leaves. :~) Steve ^{T • C} 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)