Talk:The Dark Knight

Heads-up on including new information

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

Sarah Jayne Dunn is Harleen Quinzel/Harley Quinn

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0242759/ 24.17.73.18 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Nolan himself dismissed the rumour in a Wizard interview. Alientraveller (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he laughed (dismissively), and said "We'll see." 24.17.73.18 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, IMDb is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

According to CastingCallPro, she is playing Maroni's mistress. So add this and Nolan's denial of Harley, and we're dealing with just some websites believing IMDb to be reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider a subpage on WP:FILM to show cases of why IMDb can't be reliable. We can use Internet Archive to find the purported cast/crew members before a film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nolan talks about Ledger on Newsweek

I'm not sure if this is something more appropriate on the Ledger article. It's a pretty heartfelt letter from Nolan about Ledger, about his experience with him working on the film. http://www.newsweek.com/id/105580 --Lordkelvin (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice letter. Since this is an expression of Ledger's involvement with the film, perhaps it'd be appropriate as an external link as a kind of memorandum? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath's death needs to be mentioned!

The entire marketing of the film is now up in the air. The studio heads have a big job on their hands. The film has been in the media associated with Ledger. The posters are going to probably be pulled featuring him as the Joker. The official web site for Batman: The Dark Knight, and the Joker web site, both have tributes. The Dark Knight's web site was actually shut off for a full Heath tribute. The voice over completion was also reported on, if Ledger finished post production. All of this should be mentioned. Right there you have the marketing, production, etc.

You don't have to go into rumors, just what is surrounding the film, now that Heath is deceased.

Nolan has issued a full page tribute to Heath that is heartbreaking.

This is all related to the film, and I hope you get that, since sooner or later, it's going to end up on here as we get closer to the release, and the media totally making it about Heath's last film, and interviewing the cast, asking them about it.

You could now get it concise, and get it "over with", before people start coming on, posting paragraph, after paragraph about Ledger. 68.82.82.248 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at the end of the Release section, mentioning how Ledger's death would affect the Joker-centric marketing campaign. Not sure what could be said in the respective entry in the Cast section, though. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article is now, the mentions of Ledger's death seems fairly disconnected from the rest of the section. That is, both the Cast section and the Marketing section report a fairly organized presentation of the information, and are then proceeded by a statement acknowledging the death of Heath Ledger. The cast section summarizes the characterization, acting technique, and initial reception of the character of the Joker in this film, but then seems to tack on an obliquely related mention of his death. Similarly, the Marketing section describes the details of the viral marketing campaign and trailers in fairly specific terms, providing an informative history of the marketing, but then makes a somewhat vague statement about the unknown state of said marketing campaign due to Ledger's passing (although I will admit that the information as of now is fairly vague). It would seem to fit better to eventually add a subsection to this article acknowledging Heath Ledger's death in regards to how it affects this film, although I would suggest waiting until the online speculation dies down a bit. In the meantime, I might suggest mentioning Heath's passing in a sentence or two, as that seems to be consistent with the structuring used for The Crow and The Queen of The Damned.74.74.86.54 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:NOT a memorial. Second WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good reason to do anything. Finally, we've specifically addressed this to achieve consensus before, and no amount of WP:ILIKEIT overrules good editing and better content policies, including well argued consensus to focus on ledger's death ONLY vis-a-vis it's impact. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Ledger's death ought to be detailed in this article, nor the public response to it be mentioned, and I do apologize for not making this clearer. What I was trying to say is that the current mentions of it seems to be somewhat unrelated to the sections that they are listed under. For instance, the cast section describes the characterization of the Joker, but the following mention of his death seems to have little to do with this characterization. I do think that the article should limit itself to only mentioning his death as it effects the film, my only suggestion was in regards to how the infomation was structured within the article. 74.74.86.54 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Ledger will sadly not be with us to explain the inner depths of his performance, it seems fine to have a secondary paragraph discussing analysis of his performance. Halloween, an FA, adds a little bit of critical opinions in the direction section (though this seems appropriate considering the low-budget nature of the film). And as more on the marketing takes place, we will report it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we're all interested in reporting how the death of Heath Ledger impacts this film, but I'm not sure if there's really information besides speculation (especially regarding to the film's marketing). You suggested a separate section about it, but I would have to disagree because sections are usually meant for substantial content. Sometimes we build sections that we expect to be expanded later on (like adding Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings to a "Critical reaction" section with the expectation of quoting actual reviews down the road). However, in this case, we really don't know how much his death will really affect this project. It's definitely affected The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in a big way. I think the best approach is to add what little we know whenever we can, and if there happens to be a boon of verifiable information down the road, especially with the possibility of this being his last film (depending on Parnassus), we could re-explore the possibility of a separate section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A death can affect more than just marketing. If you all remember back to the movie "Dirty Work", Chris Farley was in it even though he had died before it's release. Even if there isn't any real evidence to back it up, we all know a substantial number of people went to see that movie that might not have otherwise - simply to see Chris Farleys last performance. The same is the case here. Ledger was apparantly very troubled, and it will likely show greatly in his portrayal of the joker. The page doesn't need a memorial, but a mention is definately in order - his death will sell tickets. I for one was not interested in this movie - but I am planning on seeing it now just to see Ledgers final performance. --Magus05 ^(talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Skateboarding Joker

The edit tab is disabled, so non-registered users like me cannot add information to the article but you Batman fans may be interested to learn that the Joker apparently rides a skateboard in the new film, according to Nolan [1]. Cheers. 210.50.60.22 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Ledger might have enjoyed skateboarding on set, but clearly you might be taking Nolan's comments out of context. There is no indication Joker will skateboard in the film. It actually sounds quite trivial though if he did. Alientraveller (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to quote the article, "Ledger plays the psychotic, mass-murdering, skateboarding Joker in Nolan's film, set to be released in July." It is possible the journalist misunderstood Nolan, though.

I agree it is trivial, so it is really up to you guys whether you want to include it in the article but purely as a bit of trivia, I thought it may be interesting to the diehard fans who want to know how the Joker will be portrayed in this film. 210.50.60.15 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the journalist was making a joke based on what Nolan told him. Nolan said that when he first arrived on set in full make-up he was riding a skateboard.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been spotted by people while they filmed in Chicago that Joker does indeed skateboard in one scene, down a street. It was captured by Chicago FOX News and is on youtube somewhere. Anyway, I don't think it's too relevant without knowing the full context of the plot. Learning if some actor rides a bike or drives a car in his film is pointless knowledge without background. So I say leave it out for now. --Lordkelvin (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it seems to me that yes, they filmed the Joker on aboard, hence the comment about fan reaction, it still counts more as the sort of plot trivia we avoid when paring down overlong plot summaries, and unless that truly matters to the plot beyond being yet another example of the wacky zany showman aspect of Joker, then it's irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Wait and see, I say. ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lordkelvin and ThuranX -- whether or not he will be skateboarding in some scenes, the detail seems presently inane. I mean, on Joker (comics), this was cited, calling the Joker in the film "a skateboard-riding mass murderer". That's reading into it a little too strongly. It could easily be as irrelevant as him driving the bus in one of the scenes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

Horror.com interview with Ledger Alientraveller (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Domino's, General Mills Step Up to Bat for Knight Alientraveller (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT Article with pictures

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/movies/09halb.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4 There are some new pics in the slideshow on that page that can be used. It verifys somethings about double Batmans, etc. Overall, it's another great article to cite. --Lordkelvin (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I already implemented it. It doesn't really verify though the Batman-impersonating stint though (it's mentioned in passing). Let's wait until the film is out for full details. Alientraveller (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this seem to be a legit website as in verifiable? ::http://chud.com/articles/articles/13931/1/THE-TWO-PERFORMANCES-OF-TWO-FACE/Page1.html

It seems to just be some movie speculation website, so probably not. But it talks about how they filmed the duality of Dent. --Lordkelvin (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

leaked footage

There is about first 6 minutes and 30 seconds leaked from the movie - I don't want to provide any links, but search on IMDB forums - and I don't know, if it should me mentioned in the article. Because, on one hand, exluding those videos, there is no reliable source that proves these are true footage of TDK - on the other hand, these videos are clearly accurate and from the movie, so it should be mentioned somehow .... I just don't know how to write it there... --Have a nice day. Running 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't leaked, they released it with the IMAX showing of I Am Legend.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So the "long", 7 minute part is only a trailer? If so, my fault :) --Have a nice day. Running 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the first 6 minutes of the movie, which ends with a brief part of the official trailer. Someone might have some pirated versions of the six minutes, but, it was a clip that was officially given to the IMAX screens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A-ha! so the first 6 minutes are not legally available anywhere, so it is sort of "leaked" ... but well I see it already in the article. --Have a nice day. Running 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's death was indirectly mentioned

The film will be released in Australia before it is released in America. Normally movies made in America are released here first than anywhere else, the earlier release in Australia could have something to do with deceased actor Heath Ledger because, well, I think the actor was originally from Australia. Not sure though. So, though not directly, the article seems to already mention it. 206.63.78.78 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)stardingo747

It does not have anything to do with Ledger's death; I believe that release date was already set before Ledger's death. Australia has been first in opening a film before, like with the recent 10,000 BC. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source stating that the movie is coming out in Australia first in respect to Heath then I'ld support putting it in the article. Otherwise it's just speculation. Rekija (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Joker info added?

I read on a Gotham City police report from a movie web site that Joker was killed by a mob of people, but then I read that joker goes on trial and he throws acid in Harvey's face. Which is correct? and should it be added?Quinlanfan2 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Link please. Alientraveller (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Police report, i think its a fake: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.canmag.com/images/front/batman/darkknight4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.canmag.com/nw/8479-dark-knight-gotham-joker-police-file&h=809&w=439&sz=144&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=OzOXlzfiqKEy5M:&tbnh=143&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddark%2Bknight%2Bjoker%2Bpolice%2Breport%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff 74.231.186.104 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Joker's trial: http://darkhorizons.com/2008/darkknight.php

the pic of him dead looks like a fake because thats not even Heath Ledger in the pic.74.231.186.104 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was part of the viral marketing campaign. At the San Diego Comic Con a bunch of people went on a Dark Knight scavenger hunt and it ended with a "fan" getting taken in a black suv by mafiosos in black suits. He was "believed to be the joker" and was "found dead" a few days later. It's all part of the plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.213.19 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative language

See need to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this article as in any other Wikipedia article. Needs reliable third-party published sources throughout re: marketing campaign if some can be quoted as associating it with viral marketing; otherwise that is Wikipedia's editors' point of view and misleadingly pejorative (given the Wikipedia article on the subject]]. Needs more neutral presentation. Editing summary calling neutral language "weasel words" is off the mark as well, revealing editorial POV. See WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The movie's viral campaign is the work of 42 Entertainment, a Pasadena, Calif., independent producer of alternate-reality multimedia environments. The goal was to create a multiplatform story bridging the 2005 film -- which cost $150 million to produce and sold about $370 million of tickets world-wide -- and its sequel." Alientraveller (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And I seriously have no idea about half you said, but oh well, nice copyediting in the Marketing section. I just perfected a lil' bit and it looks great. Thanks anyway. Alientraveller (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too; I did finally find the sources to the "viral marketing" campaign. I put in a link for one of them in a source citation in past hour or so. Now I finally do need to log out. (Got caught up in the changes.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the revisions! :) We probably suffer a little detail creep and need to balance the content once in a while. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotation punctuation, apostrophes

Throughout Wikipedia: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended." (Wikipedia:MOS, WP:PUNC) --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we try for that, but depending on the way it is delivered, it's not always possible. What are some instances you think could be better? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This was just by way of explanation of some of the few changes in QP that I've already made (see editing history/diffs.). Some may have been reverted; I'm not sure. So I thought I'd just post the rationale for the changes in this sec. Thanks again. (I'm mostly logged out of Wikipedia getting projects ready for press.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

• T.L. Stanley (2008-03-16). "Domino's, General Mills Step Up to Bat for Knight". Brandweek. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Marketing headline to implement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Linked in the #Citations for use section, but thanks for filling out the template. Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. :) I had this nagging feeling I saw something about "Domino's" somewhere earlier, but didn't see any mention in the article. Now I know where I saw it. Oh, well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Make-up in "Design" section revisited: still unclear and unverifiable

• [copying exchange from my current talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)]

The Dark Knight

See this for discussion about the wording for the Joker's makeup. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: I see that others have previously been confused by the presentation: here is a link to "World Exclusive: The Joker Speaks", another article with a link to the magazine issue (click on cover link) from Jan. 2008 that presumably includes the article by Dan Jolin cited; could use a text to see the context so that the statements can be worded accurately. I was just working on this citation possibility when I saw this message from you. Discussion more relevant to the talk page of the article I think. Will move this there. --NYScholar (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures leaked on April 2nd

Is there any confirmation to the legitimacy of any of the pictures on the following website, [2] and if so, would it be worth mentioning if the Joker does not wear makeup throughout The Dark Knight, if indeed legitimate? 66.24.238.22 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are legitimate, we can't really say he doesn't wear makeup throughout the movie. He's only not wearing makeup in one picture. That's hard to determine how much he's wearing the makeup. In any case, until the movie comes out, it would be highly speculative on how much he wears the Joker makeup. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, that could be a pre-joker pic, that is, before he starts wearing makeup and becomes a criminal mastermind. Maybe is part of a flashback.Franshu (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke in my above post, what I meant to ask was with regards to the possibility of the Joker not wearing makeup at some point during the movie, that is, whether or not the Joker constantly wears makeup, sorry for the confusion. Again, there does not seem to be any confirmation as to whether or not the pictures are legitimate. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They are obviously legitimate, but still cant use emFranshu (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Joker takes off makeup in the scene pictured to cause havoc from within a police march. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. But still that info cant be added to the article cuz it has to b kinda official, u know.Franshu (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The information cannot be added until deemed official. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Boldface in the cast of characters section

My favorite has to be the newly-bolded redlink. There's nothing quite like the most useless part of a screenful of text jumping out at you because it's red and bold and underlined. Also, I really enjoyed the stage of the dispute when "it's prose, not list" was used as a trump card. Kudos. EAE (Holla!) 05:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that your fingers are broken, and you can only type uncivil snide comments, instead of just fix the problem. Get better soon. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eaefremov, the point of bolding, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface (see 'definition list') and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information, is to aid readability where the names of both actor and character may be indistinct otherwise (i.e. when buried in prose). Surely having separate section headings of each main character's name, as you desired initially, is much more obtrusive? All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX; the snideness is not appreciated. When I reverted your changes, I left your unbolding of that particular list alone because I agree with the bold redlink setup. As Steve explains, the use of bold formatting is appropriate for the main characters here. If there is another issue with the setup, we can discuss that. I tested a revision using ---- lines to further the breakup without needing to resort to multiple section headings for the Cast section. In addition, please try to understand that we will make the prose unbroken down the road. At present, it is difficult to use images or quote boxes in the Cast section because the infobox will push either item down. When the film comes out, there will be a full Plot section that pushes content below the reach of the infobox, so we can incorporate these items to break up the prose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ensemble cast

From the review of the pre-screening, it seems like this movie has about 4 main characters, who all live in some way, and at some point of the film, a double life. It's obviously an ensemble cast unlike Batman Begins.  Chantessy  18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's only obvious to you. That falls into the category of Original Research, and cannot be included. If you can find citations to support your assessment, please provide them for discussion. ThuranX (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this notion. I don't think it's as obvious as you say, as I've kept up with headlines for The Dark Knight and have not seen any "ensemble" reference. From what I've seen, ensemble casts usually need to be bigger than 4 (and I'm not even sure who you consider a main character besides Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent, and the Joker). Films like the Ocean's Eleven trilogy, Bobby, and Sunshine have all been cited to be ensemble films with ensemble casts. I haven't seen this explicit categorization for The Dark Knight, but I welcome any coverage from third-party, published sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Please refrain from continually re-inserting redundant links as external links in the "External links" section; links that are already provided as source citations should not be added to that section: see WP:EL#References and citation and the history of editing this article (archived discussions and editing history). Moreover, please refrain from adding such promotional sites; this article is an encyclopedia article (see Wikipedia:Encyclopedia), not an advertisement for the film; See also: WP:Spam (no ads) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. The sites that I removed are already linked in the source citations. Please read the article and consult the editing history & archived discussions re: external links. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Poster

http://www.whysoserious.com/itsallpartoftheplan/poster.htm Is it worth adding new posters?--Lordkelvin (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to replace the one we have. This was seems more official theatrical poster than merely promotional.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. It seems like whenever there is an edit to this page, Alientraveller always undoes the change simply because he is afraid of change. Could we have all members of Wikipedia note that this film has been not released and that this is the confirmed new poster by Warner Bros.? In accordance, this article is expected to be changed until the hype has settled down and new content added is absolutely acceptable.  DarthBotto  (Contact me) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (AK)

What on earth? Alientraveller (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trailer

There was a new trailer attached to a sneak peak of Iron Man. 71.182.159.53 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I saw Scarecrow in the white van that Batman smashes. ARBlackwood (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB seems to promote that idea so it's likely that's him. 71.182.159.53 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is. Freeze frame the video if need be, but he is in it, with his mask on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.156.90 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline?

I was wondering if you guys mind if I add a small section at the end with major dates in The Dark Knight timeline? --Huper Phuff ^talk 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

such as...

May 11, 2007 - http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com, the movie's official site, opens.

July 27, 2007 - The participants at the San Diego Comic Con were given clown masks as a reward, while online players were rewarded with the first teaser trailer for The Dark Knight.

December 16, 2007 - The first theatrical trailer becomes available for downloading on http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com.

May 4, 2008 - The second theatrical trailer becomes available online (expected from http://whysoserious.com/Happytrails/)

July 18, 2008 - United States release date for The Dark Knight

Actually, I am going to add it to the end, it's really small and highlights the bigger dates in the timeline. I won't add the 2nd trailer until it officially comes out, but feel free to edit the timeline if you like. I think it's important to keep it short, and relevant which I think this timeline is... --Huper Phuff ^talk 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but I can't quite put my finger on why we need a brief marketing timeline of all things. Steve ^{T • C} 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bank Of China Tower

The bank of china tower is clearly shown in the opening scene of the second trailer. In the past, films like this have avoided using recognizable landmarks in order to keep up the illusion. Does this mean that gotham city is now Hong Kong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.98.24 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First, this isn't the place to discuss such things. The talk page of the article is for discussing improvements to the article. But, to quickly answer you, what makes you think that you were seeing Gotham city anyway? You could have very well have been seeing the film's version of Hong Kong. Nothing says something couldn't have taken place in Hong Kong. Trailers are naturally deceptive with how they edit certain scenes. That's why we generally don't use them to cite events in a film. The Prestige is a prime example of that, as Christian Bale's character is insinuated to be a "real magician" (i.e. a wizard), but in fact it's referring to a completely different character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Batman travels to Hong Kong in the film. 72.28.80.14 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trailer wins award

The second trailer for this film has won an award. Would there be an appropriate place to mention this? Finbar McBride (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lock it

This page needs to be locked, in my opinion. this little jewel was very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storytellershrink (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't 'lock' pages for an instance of creative vandalism. If this becomes a persistent problem, we can take actions like blocking the IP editor, or semi-protecting the page. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ROFL, that is hilarious, no ThuranX is right...this happens all the time on wikipedia...that's why people patrol changes to the pages very very often. What a devoted crowd that ensures wikipedia remains a fairly reliable source. It's highly underestimated by the teachers of the world. I learn tons of stuff from this site. --Huper Phuff ^talk 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup (ongoing)

I began doing some cleanup of the format of citations, removing unnecessary brackets around citation template dates, etc.; further cleanup still needed. Please review WP:CITE for assistance in formatting citations. (There are editorial interpolations throughout (in angle brackets) where some guidance is given as well [by earlier editors]. Please do not place unsourced material in editorial brackets; statements in Wikipedia articles need verifiable citations to reliable third-party published sources as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines and Wikipedia core editing policies: e.g., WP:V#Sources. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia editors' original interpretations based on watching trailers for the film are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia; actual third-party published reliable sources are needed for all statements in Wikipedia and transitions are needed for coherence in paragraphs where the same source is being used for more than one sentence. Sources are needed after all statements, not just some of them. Please see the missing citations templates where work is still needed re: providing adequate and acceptable citations. Please also see Wikipedia core editing policy prohibiting "original research" at WP:NOR for further guidance as well. One cannot be expected to watch a trailer to verify the content of this article. Verifiable reliable third-party published sources are needed to document statements about the subject (the film). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Some outdated URLs throughout the article need replacement; otherwise, the statements made with those citations cannot be verified and must be deleted. Note that this article concerns many living persons; so see WP:BLP relating to the kinds of sources required for documentation [of] statements being made about them or attributed to them throughout the article. --NYScholar (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC) [Added missing word "of" in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)]

Re: citation format cleanup (partly subject of this section under discussion): Please do not put brackets around dates in citation templates; they are not necessary and it is very time-consuming to have to continue removing them. Please see the link to citation templates for further information about various fields included, order of items, and so on, via WP:CITE. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Other suggested revisions

Something I'd suggest removing is the other filmmakers' interpretations of Ledger's take on Joker, and rewriting all the stuff on the viral marketing. Yay? Nay? Alientraveller (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given this comment its own heading because it relates to previous discussions about editing this article and goes far beyond "cleanup" into changing the content of the article (its substance). A lot of work by many editors and their attempts to achieve some consensus on some of the above-mentioned content would be lost and many source citations (that may be referred back to in subsequent coded citations) would also be lost. I do not see any rationale being offered for the above suggestion. First of all, please refer to each point you question by quoting it specifically so one can know specifically what you are talking about. The reference to "all the stuff on the viral marketing" is vague; the subject of "viral marketing" (in both lead and in body of article supporting the lead) was discussed by a number of editors earlier and is documented with reliable sources that are verifiable. Please cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines re: such a suggestion. I do not advocate a "yah" "nay" approach to this matter. Please be specific and cite policies and guidelines in Wikipedia to support your suggestions. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're formal. My point was I had added analysis of Ledger's performance by filmmakers like Guillermo del Toro, Paul Dini and Mark Hamill ages ago to compliment the info on actors who were interested in the part and Jack Nicholson being "furious". It does show how big bringing back the character to the big screen was, and cruelly ironic that I put filmmakers analyzing Heath's performance there, before he died and thus will never give us final insight into his performance.

My second suggestion is the marketing section might be long, and violate WP:NOTGUIDE. I'd suggest using this LAT article Teasing Batman to rewrite it in retrospect, rather than being a full-on timeline of each treasure hunt. Alientraveller (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I rambled on the first part. Wouldn't this info on Joker's importance to viewers be better for his article about his media depictions than a section on what this actor brought to the production? Alientraveller (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic seems debatable to me in the view that filmmakers who had already "analyzed Heath's peformance ... before he died" might "never give us final insight into his performance"; after the film is released, filmmakers and others who have already commented on it are likely to make new comments; see the template on the article page, which states, in part: "The content may change as the film's release approaches and more information becomes available." The content of this article will change after the release of the film and the addition of material based on film reviews and other articles about it. I leave it to others to re-read the parts that you are concerned about to offer their views about them. (I'll be offline.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said: I was musing on the irony that we have people discussing how Ledger approached his role, yet he himself won't be telling interviewers his ideas on particular shooting days in July. Anyway, I guess I can rearrange it when all the reviews arrive. Alientraveller (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I jsut read that through. NYScholar, that was a really bad bit of quoting all but one word, which you changed to give that all a new meaning, then selectively breaking up the quote to attempt to rewrite it. try instead "filmmakers analyzing Heath's performance there," and "before he died and thus will never give us final insight into his performance." the second of course meaning that with ledger dead, he himself can't tell us what his intents and motivations were. As for using other filmmakers' and even other participants in this film's words to describe Ledger's performance and appraoch, I fully support it. If you've got the citations, use them. ThuranX (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is a successful way to implement the 152 minute runtime into this page. IGN has an article about it, but I do not know exactly how to place it in a fashionable manner. DarthBotto (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. ThuranX (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First Two Face pics

Found this but when I tried to upload it it said "File has no extention like (.jpg)" http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.headstatic.com/whitenoise/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/2face.jpg&imgrefurl=http://headstatic.com/whitenoise/archives/108&h=735&w=649&sz=187&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=WzV9f8ZKZ2CGYM:&tbnh=141&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddark%2Bknight%2Btwo%2Bface%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN Quinlanfan2 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

it's a fake. ThuranX (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Although there are various fanart pictures of Two-Face at various websites, this perticular image has been taken down per Warner Bros. request from ,amoung other websites, digg.com [3] and JoBlo.com [4]. I have no idea if this is an accurate representation of his appearence in the film, as the only 100% legitimate picture of Two-Face was seen briefly in the trailer released in May.[5]. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Let's put a smile on that face!"

Ok, well, the Joker has a Glasgow smile in this, or as some people now it, a chelsea grin. That's why he has the makeup. I included the think about the glasgow smile in his section, but i have one question. When he says "let's put a smile on that face" and he's holding that knife, is he going to give someone a glasgow smile? User:Kazaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.48.113 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed that addition as it's not known for sure whether the Joker just wears make-up or if there's a story twist. You'll see in the archives my explanation Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 5#Joker wearing make-up. Alientraveller (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It says in the design section that he never takes the make-up off, meaning he has a choice in having it on. User:Kazaan —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article in Total Film

Would any of the information in the June 2008 article of Total Film be relevent enough to be mentioned in this article? Some elaboration was made on the characterisation of Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Joker, although this information may be somewhat redundant. 66.24.238.22 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Early Protection

Recently the Two Face page has been vandalised a couple of times and as this movie gets closer you know the vandalism is coming so should we go ahead and protect the page?LifeStroke420 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We only protect pages that have a clear case of vandalism happening repeatedly. We don't do it for the potentialness of vandalism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

edits

I think this will do as far as a new thing to work on. I like this page and like the edits, but I will help too. Canb this be and I'll research on the net to add some new info. Thanks everyone. Any question you can talk on my talk page. Boggydark (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cobblepot in TDK

Phillip Seymour Hoffman will be Oswald Cobblepot in the dark knight. I know becuz you guys SAID IT IN THE Penguin (comics) article! Go read it! And edit this TDK page with Cobblepot in it under cast and characters. Thank you. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Read it again. It says he was rumored but Nolan dismissed the rumor saying that Penguin would be difficult to portray on film. Mcflytrap (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joker is needing help

I think the Joker page I mean section is needing a edit. Ill see to it but I need back up. I think this page is slipping but should be okay with eric and Bignol fixing it. They are cool. Fuck if I know what to do but they help alot. Any others? Boggydark (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have not been helpful. Your grammar and information have been confusing. If you have a point that you think needs inclusion, please explain it back here first. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

new poster

TAKE IT DOWN. ITS DISTURBING AND THE FIRST ONE WAS BETTER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I ate 7 Batman fruit snack pouches in honor of this movie.