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)

UK release date

I saw it advitised for the 24th? So i suggest it get's changed to the 24th on the wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulV15590 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The previews are 23rd, the official release date has been moved to 24th. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Aren't we holding off on the RT link until closer to the release? I see it's been added again but I didn't want to pull it without discussion. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm surprised there's no mention about it getting 100% 80.41.187.15 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer both questions, I don't think we should mention the score yet because there simply aren't enough reviews (15 currently) to provide an accurate score, statistically speaking. On the other hand, the Rotten Tomatoes external link is still useful for providing access to those reviews, as we only cite a few of them directly in the article. Steve ^{T • C} 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hold off. Only real big-time critics got to see it so far, so it's not exactly accurate yet.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The RT cite suggests otherwise. 24 reviews, and a nice spread of critics. Time to unveil the stats, I reckon. Some of the reviews in the article could perhaps do with replacing with ones from more mainstream critics too, for a fully fleshed-out reception section. I've been holding off doing the latter because I didn't want to tread on the toes of the article's main contributors; I've added virtually nothing to the article content and they might have different ideas on how to construct the section. But I'll go ahead and stick the RT statistics in for now. Steve ^{T • C} 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No Cell Phones Allowed?

I heard that some movie theatres arn't allowing people bring in cell phones with them to the dark knight? I heard it on the radio but the only ref I could find was for a USC screening...can anyone prove this with a AMC or National Amusements movie theatre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.145.2 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Isn't this on a theater-by-theater basis rather than for only one film? Gary King (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I work for the Regal Entertainment Group (biggest theatre chain) and I haven't heard of a cellphone ban in place for this movie. It's probably a local thing for an independant chain. Aml830 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a really stupid idea. How much video can you capture even on the best of phones? I'm guessing not more than 10 minutes. And who'd really want to capture a video on a phone, anyway, with all the jiggling and the horrible sound? Not to mention that holding up a phone, with its bright lights, is not very discreet. --24.10.63.237 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this header was put in because the summary neglects to mention the cellphone surveillance technique which, along with torture, reveal Batman's dark side. This is a notable aspect of the film which is used in two different sequences. It raised serious ethical questions for at least one of the characters (Lucius Fox) and should be included in the summary. --Nihilozero (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My phone can record for over 2 1/2 hours due to recording directly to my 1GB microSD card. Also, it can record in "self-portrait" mode, with the phone closed and projecting its recorded image to the external LCD (which possibly can be shut off as well). If you can find a good place to mount it and check your angle, you could record a semi-decent quality bootleg with it. So it is possible to do it with a cellphone. --74.192.60.130 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception intro

ThuranX has removed the following information from the reception section:

The Dark Knight has received generally favorable reviews from film critics, with a general consensus forming that it succeeds not only as a comic book adaptation, but also as a "thrilling" and complex crime saga. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 88% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, with an average score of 7.8/10, based upon a sample of 24 reviews. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 74, based on seven reviews.

I'm not about to revert ThuranX; he/she cites a consensus to keep this out until the film is released. But to be honest, I can't see that in the above conversations. I thought we were just keeping it out until it contained enough information to be statistically useful (which at that time it didn't, but at the current number of reviews, I believe is). Thoughts, opinions, and theses below, please. Steve ^{T • C} 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve; I think the 100% "bubble" has finally been punctured (almost always happens with these films). Obviously, RT and MC will continue shifting as more and more reviews come out, but I think that the statistics are meaningful now. My impression was that we kept out the information initially because we knew it would not stay at 100% with only a handful. 88% is a more realistic number, even though it may go up or down. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, didnt' even see this (a notice would've been nice, Steve, but no biggie), and I"m not opposing it, but it seemed for a whiel we were trying to keep it out. Just a few horus till it's atotally moot point anyway. ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek

Detailed interview with Christopher Nolan. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"See below"

"..as well as to the memory of technician Conway Wickliffe, who was killed during a car accident while preparing one of the film's stunts (see below)."

I clicked that "See Below" part, but didn't seem to be redirected anywhere that had anything to do with Conway. Shouldn't we fix this? --81.156.26.22 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me in both Firefox 3 and IE7. But there's no real reason for it; I'll reword accordingly. Steve ^{T • C} 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Strange, clicking it works for me. It moves me down to the third paragraph in the "Filming" subsection. If this does not work for me, it may be a matter of settings. Perhaps we should remove "(see below)" entirely, since I added the coding with the opinion that the phrase was too vague for such a long article beneath it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you removed it; it should not have been in the article to begin with. Rarely, if ever, should "self-aware" (not sure how else to say it) phrases be used. For instance, if someone only printed the first page of an article and it said "see below", then it would not make much sense. It's just like saying "See this article" (where it links to another article.) Once it gets printed, it won't make much sense, and Wikipedia articles definitely appear in many, many different mediums and it should adapt to all of them. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good reasoning. I suppose I implemented the coding because I didn't want to make a major edit during that particular time frame (an uncomfortable editing atmosphere). Looks like the article does fine without it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we set it up so that earlier mention is itself the link to the later section? that would avoid the self-aware problem.ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but it's probably unnecessary in the long run; I think both sections have enough context to work alone. But if other editors agree, I'll sway with the majority. Incidentally, would you mind chipping in your thoughts above? Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and GA Nomination

Do you think this article is up for a Good Article Nomination?

and also, the critical reception section is all completely positive reviews. I'm pretty sure there weren't ANY bad reviews for this film, but if there is a single one, it should be listed if it's by a credible source because it seems rather baised. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the reception section should be fleshed out a little more, but I don't think the article is ready for GA yet, purely due to the requirement for stability. As the film is released, more and more information is going to be added to it (plot, box office, more reviews and general criticism, awards). I'd wait until it's been out a little while before nominating. Steve ^{T • C} 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking that we should rewrite the article in the sense of re-organizing the content to flow better. When we slowly build up an article, I think we tend to be painfully chronological and specific. We could probably write a better overview, and we could probably find citations that cover more detail better (as it happens leading up to a film's release). Let's definitely not rush into pursuing a GA nomination just yet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

This section needs work. Why do they read like advertisements for the film? "twisted, tortured, terrifying -- and terrific." "the Unforgiven of superhero movies." That's mainly from the New York Daily News one, but the others seem to be a bit too heavily quoted. We should be paraphrasing what they are saying, and focusing on their analysis of the film and not just their appraisal or disapproval. Generally, when you write about what they thought of the film analytically, their opinion of the film is clear. Listing the star rating...it's just extraneous information, especially if you're doing a good job of paraphrasing their opinion of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It does needs some work. I've been holding off on any major changes because I didn't want to step on your and the other regular contributors' toes (you might have different plans to what I normally come up with). But if you want me to have a quick punt at it, I could probably throw something together later. Steve ^{T • C} 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of my thing too, only, I didn't want to make any major changes until the film was released and we had enough reviews available to have a comprehensive section (that, and I wanted to see the film first). Maybe we should go ahead and clean it all up - better to have it straight now, then have more work later?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing that's bugging me is the repeated Peter Travers references. Is he the only respected reviewer? --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a run at the first real critics para in the reception. I pushed for balancing them, and avoiding repetition; tow talk about the frenetic pace, so I used one for that, and the other for the execution of the themes. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is a lot better than it was this morning (well, I would!), but it was a bit of a rush job so there's probably some bloat in the wording we can get rid of. What we need to be careful of, however, is recasting the sentences so they stray from the points the reviewers made. It's a fine line to walk. Steve ^{T • C} 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility on splitting that one quote. As for the 'while', I really think it belongs in front. Not only does it indicate contrast in that para ,but it demonstrates and sets a goal of balance throughout the section, in keeping with NPOV. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Weeelll, I still don't like that "while". It feels unnecessary. Read the whole sentence aloud; it's cumbersome without being split properly in two. Shorter sentences are better for clarity. But, consensus and all that, so if you two want it in, I'll not quibble over one word. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of writing styles, I think. If you can set it up so it's still tight and clearly contrasting, then make it two sentences. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but if there isn't a way, I'll leave it be. Incidentally, any particular reason we lost Ansen's "unyielding intensity... occasionally overwhelming" bit, leaving only his praise? Steve ^{T • C} 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seemed to overlap with the other guy's talking about the fast pacing and such; maybe you could rearrange ot open with 'ansen agrees about the pace ,and blah blah blah' ? ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK, just wondering is all. Steve ^{T • C} 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Peter Travers? Admittedly, had I been writing the section from scratch, I almost certainly wouldn't have chosen to cite him, but as he was already in the section when I rewrote it this afternoon (UK), I thought I might as well use what we had. Plus, I didn't want the previous contributors to the section to feel I was running roughshod over all their hard work by removing everything. Steve ^{T • C} 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I reduced him a bit to assuage the concerns of that editor, but i find nothign wrong with using him. I think that because the reception is written as story, then actors, then technical or whatever the categories, some repetition of names is needed. It's fine with me. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Travers is often one of the most quoted critics in movie advertisements. This can be a bad thing (http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2382). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.135.58 (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're on this, the section is written in the present tense. Now, I know NYScholar said that this is standard practise in works of criticism, but I (and I suspect most of us) generally do them in the past tense. I'm happy to leave it in the present tense, but I just thought I'd throw the question out there to gauge opinion. The only potential problem I can see is if one of the critics we cite reappraises the film at some point in the future, maybe when it's out on DVD, and comes to an altogether different conclusion as to the film's level of awesome. That reappraisal is ideal for our purposes, but might not work if we keep it all in the present tense, if you see what I mean. Ah well, maybe we should just cross that bridge when we come to it.. Steve ^{T • C} 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Joker

The character bio for this character seems more like a strange epitath for Heath Ledger. I would like to see a little more about the character, not the actor. Seanpnoot (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be because they aren't "character bios". The information present is based on an out-of-universe perspective, and it's also based on what information is available. We cannot invent information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, a lot of what we have is specifically about Ledger's approach to and interpretation of the Joker. Thus, he's prominently featured in that section. ThuranX (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The part detailing Ledger's preparation for the role needs to be at least reorganized; it's bordering on plagiarism from IMDb. Jamie1743 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jokingly" needs to modify Jack Nicholson's response to not being asked to reprise the role of the Joker in the "Cast and Characters" section. Even the citation includes "[he laughs]" after saying he's "furious." In its current state the article seems somewhat misleading to me, as I've always been under the impression that there were no hard feelings on his part about the role going to Ledger. --Ryanc33 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to change that but was unsure how.... (Yohowithrum (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Reception

This section reads like a complete mishmash; there's no coherence tying it together. It also quotes the same four reviewers (Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy) almost incestuously. We're introduced to their opinions in the second paragraph, and then treated to them all over again in every paragraph thereafter. This section is badly in need of (1) more diversity among cited critics, (2) more concise summaries of their reviews, and (3) greater synthesis of their respective opinions.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reviewers are interwoven because otherwise it's going to be a listy setup of each reviewer's opinion, awkwardly collapsed into prose. Also, we can't synthesize. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There has to be some logical structure to the section (i.e., whether it be dealing with positive reviews first, then negative reviews, or something else); otherwise, it's all over the place. Also, there needs to be a broader range of critical opinions discussed. Right now, instead of having a good idea of how the film has been received by the critical community at large, we're treated to a tedious cut and paste job from reviews by Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy. It's as if there's a contest to see how many times the names of those four critics can be mentioned in the same section. Other critics have reviewed the film and formed their own opinions. We should hear them. Finally, the cites and quotes need to be much more succinct. The idea is to give a general idea of how the critic in question views the film, not to provide a play-by-play, detail-by-detail blow of his published review. In the time it takes to read and make sense of this section, one could read the primary sources instead.-PassionoftheDamon (talk)

The structure I was attempting to go for, which I admit may not have been wholly successful, was firstly a paragraph discussing the script, themes and structure, then the acting/characters (which seem to have received the most column-inches in the reviews I've read, for obvious reasons), then the filmmaking craft in general, then a brief overview/conclusion from each reviewer. However, I'll see if I can weave in the review you added in a couple of places, using something other than the shorthand quotes. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do only what you think works. I'm not nearly inclined to make a big thing about one little review. I just found the Unforgiven comparison elucidative. You've obviously put a lot of thought and work into this article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree! I don't own anything on this page (indeed, the only section that can be said to have been written by me anyway is the reception section; others have put far more time and effort into the article). Steve ^{T • C} 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the structure Steve intended, and I kind of like it, as it presents the reviews as they relate to various aspects, aspects noted in multiple reviews. Otherwise, you get a he said/he said across the board each time, with no close balancing for each section. If four of four quoted reviewers praise the plot, that should go together. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Erik says, while I wouldn't ordinarily have a problem with the review you're trying to add (the review itself, rather than the way it's been farmed for a couple of context-free quotes, that is), one of the other reasons I eliminated it is because I didn't want the section to become unbalanced in its praise for the film. However, this is, as all things are on Wikipedia, a work in progress, and I can't see the harm in a couple more reviewers in the section in place of one or more comments from the ones we have at present. Any more than that and we're in trouble: a section that's too long, or a section that's full of one-line appraisals with no depth. It's one of the reasons we provide the link to the film's Rotten Tomatoes page at the bottom of the article: it provides access to all the reviews we simply haven't the space to include. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I have to say that I think your fears about the section becoming unbalanced in its praise for the film are unfounded. The duty here is not to be "balanced" with respect to the positive and negative reviews of the film, but to provide a snapshot of how the film has generally been received. If the film has been overwhelmingly positively received, as it has to this point (according to Metacritic, it's been given "universal acclaim"), then that's the picture we have to paint. Of course, we shouldn't sweep the negative reviews under the rug (e.g., Edelstein's New York Magazine review and Denby's New Yorker review), but neither should we pretend, for the sake of "balance," that the film has been received, on the whole, ambivalently. I don't agree with suppressing positive reviews for the sake of maintaining the pretense of a balance of opinion that does not actually exist. However, I do wholeheartedly agree with your concerns about the growing length of this section.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Passion. Use caution with respect to editing your comments once they're posted as it may make the responses below confusing or the thread as a whole hard to follow. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of what balance of reviews to cite is only a recent one I've considered. Until recently, I favoured reception sections that reflected more or less the consensus of opinion towards the film. I wrote this early version of the Hancock critical reaction section with that in mind (and intending to add more, mostly negative reviews in the same manner). After concerns raised by another editor, and subsequent discussion on that article's talk page, it was decided to balance the reviews up a little more to present a neutral point of view, so I rewrote it in the style you've come across at this article. It still skews slightly towards the negative, intentionally, but presents a fairer picture. The episode actually led to a rewrite of the film style guideline on reception sections, for which there was a consensus in favour. But any further input on how we should do this will be appreciated both here and at WT:MOSFILM. However, I do agree that the current version of the Dark Knight reception section isn't quite as successful at coherently separating the various filmmaking disciplines as the Hancock one is. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby. And, I'm sorry, but speaking not specifically about this film but in general, Peter Travers is not a critic we should be using, when so many others are better and more insightful writers, like Anthony Lane at The New Yorker, A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Maitland McDonagh of, all places, TVGuide.com. Travers is the single biggest quote-whore whom publicists go to get some asinine quotes for their ads. Go to your local paper and see if I'm wrong. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And as I've just seen, by coincidence, McDonagh is the first review at | RottenTomatoes: The Dark Knight]. (And she's quite a tomato herself, I've just seen.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

really? Sexism's the best you can do for why we should include her? cause she's hot? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an offhand comment playing off "tomato," for goodness' sake. And don't diss her if you haven't read her, or one of her several books.--151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's a bitter failed film critic. That's all your POV. Perhaps it's the inverse, that his writing style's so easy to read that people like quoting him? And you're more than welcome to link to those other reviewers or just add the material your self. If you can type one paragraph here, you can type in the article too. So tired of seeing peopel bitch without trying to fix things when they claim to know how. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Peter, stop. The Reception area is already very long, and I don't want to get in the middle of a bunch of Bat-fans. No, I'm not now nor have I ever been or wanted to be a film critic. But I've found that people attack the person when they can't really attack the argument. You know, "easy to read" isn't the point -- they're not quoting his "easy to read" negative reviews, because there hardly are any! Walter Monheit lives! [1] (Spy magazine reference. Those who remember Spy will get it.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything in there that's not trolling personal attacks on the rest of the editors here? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call "Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby" a "trolling personal attack" unless you're Travers or Denby. And I have nothing against Denby. Travers is a joke to everyone in New York. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Monheit? Talk about puffery! --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Jeez louise, could you folk be encouraged to pipe down? Thuran, youve been here well past long enough to know better how to react to people. That people have to keep mentioning this to you means one of two things: either you are are choosing to attack the same sorts of people, or the problem resides solely with you. Be civil or begone. Everyone else, stop baiting him simply because he's an easy target. Focus on the edits and not the editor.
The problem I see with the current (as of this posting) review section is that Travers' name is at the beginning of every section. This seems to ascribe the most notable criticisms to him, which of course presents an undue weight problem. there are dozens of professional reviews for the film available, and neither Travers nor anyone else should be commanding top billing for more than one paragraph.
I understand what Steve was trying to do, and its a good approach to address the points that all the reviewers tend to commonly note. However, varying when the reviewers are mentioned might remove the visual similarities that inspire the undue concerns. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a separate article for the reviews? --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot (plot details)

AM I the only one that notices that the plot does not make sense --Supermike (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No you're not...I've seen The Dark Knight, and aside from how good it is that plot summary is WAY oversimplified, ignores 3/4s of the movie and needs to be completely deleted and started again. Unfortunately, I can't remember enough of the movie to write a decent plot summary. But it definately needs work, as it does not do the Nolan script justice. I can appreciate it will be changed within the next few days though.--Dezza91 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the current plot/premise section is a hideous mess of bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as being totally devoid of paragraphs Greebowarrior (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the previous premise for now. Since the film is commercially released tomorrow, its plot should be verifiable by a sufficient number of people for adequate peer review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia has it already, doesn't it? So, while it may not be to English-speaking Earthicans, it is verifiable to Australian editors. Steve ^{T • C} 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right... I guess I have my eye on this Friday. Even so, I don't want to be spoiled by the Plot section, so hopefully one of the regulars can see it and maintain the section accordingly. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about "Batman speeds off to save Rachel" "Batman arrives and rescues Dent (but expecting Rachael)." Is this correct? I thought it was unclear in the movie if the Joker had switched the addresses, or if Batman had changed his mind and chosen to save Dent. Since the importance of saving Dent is a major theme of the movie, and since a switch by the Joker was never mentioned, I thought this was ambiguous. Anyone have any evidence one way or the other? --Camipco (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman was NOT expecting Rachel -- he tells Two-Face at the end that he had chosen him! Did the person who write this plot even watch the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.75.49 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have YOU seen the movie?? Ive seen it twice already and Batman WAS expecting Rachel, he makes that very clear before he takes off, only to find Dent at the address he was given by the Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and I hope I am), the Joker mentions that Dent was at 250 52nd Street while Rachel was at Avenue X. Batman mentions he is going to save Rachel, proceeds to where Rachel is supposed to be and instead finds Dent. Later in the movie, Dent is holding Gordon's family hostage at 250 52nd street, which is where he said his family (meaning Rachel) died, and Gordon says that he was there when it happened. So, Rachel was at 250 52nd Street and died there. The Joker gave mixed addresses. --74.192.60.130 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Certain activities serve as plot devices to give the film it's very name. Clearly stated incidents of torture and intrusive surveillance should be included to give the casual reader a better understanding of the film. Incidents such as torture should clearly be presented for what they are -- especially when the opposing character is inviting the torture to reveal the morally dubious character of the Dark Knight. The Joker, for example, clearly wanted to be tortured by Batman because he was trying (successfully) to drag him down -- since he obviously was planning on giving the information up anyway as part of his plan. The whole movie is about the Joker trying to corrupt people and when a plot device is used for that purpose it should adequately be described so that the casual reader can understand the motivation. --Nihilozero (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's original research to include things specifically for the reason of trying to show the reader what the film is "about" in terms of its name. In other words, if you interpret the movie to be about one thing then you are saying we should include plot details to reflect that. The problem is, that's original research. We should only put in the plot section an overall summary of the movie, not list every plot detail that may or may not actually lend to an understanding of the film. If we need context for understanding the themes of the film, then that will be present in another section of the article, as it is not relevant to the "plot" section - which merely summarizes the events of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving update

I initially moved a lot of pre-July 13 discussions to Archive 6, but the KB size was too staggering. I moved it again to Archive 7 (now called "July 2008, Part 1" and very full at that), and if we do any additional archiving in the course of the month, it should be moved to Archive 8, "July 2008, Part 2". If anyone has a better suggestion for archiving discussions, feel free to say so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"future film"

Don't keep re adding the future film tag, it's been out since midnight two days ago. JayKeaton (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no-one keeps re-adding anything. As far as I'm aware, you're the first to remove it. Steve ^{T • C} 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New reviews

Thought you good folk would like a link to the WGN review of TDK, located here. I am unsure as to the rules about including video of broadcast, as the print version or transcript isn't available. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

'Course, there is this one, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the Dean Richards review to Reception. As the transcript of the boradcast wasn't available, I emailed Richards for a copy of the script script, checked it against the video (located here), and posted some points from it, using the cite video template (couldn't find one for a news broadcast). I've copied the transcript of the email (sans contact info) on a subpage here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article review

I propose an article review following the film's opening weekend so we can improve the format and the flow of the article. Since I imagine that the comprehensive nature of this article will possibly put it in the Good Article spotlight like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (both which Alientraveller was a key contributor -- nice job!). Considering that there is a bombardment of coverage for this film in the month of its release, it may be worth looking for recent sources. Not only could they have new information, they could also report older information, permitting us to consolidate citations (badly needed, with 120+ of them in the article). We could do some brainstorming and list points to address in the article, tackling the oft-mentioned ones. I think we can agree that this is going to be a pretty big film, and Wikipedia should have a solid article covering it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've compiled some sources from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Reuters, and Sci Fi Wire. Feel free to utilize them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that Michael Caine created a backstory for his character. MTV reports this, but I'm pretty positive Caine has mentioned this a couple of times in other sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's in the first film's article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright... I guess the backstory seemed new to me. :) I guess we'll leave it to readers to visit the first film's article or the "Films" section of the character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

American Cinematographer and ICG

• Batman Looms Larger —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an incredibly useful article! There is a lot of content in there that could definitely serve as critical commentary to include screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to also check out the ICG article written for the Local 600. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

Lets not edit war over this. Unfortunately, this plot section will probably need to be at least a bit longer than most, since the film is longer and fairly complex for one of its length. rootology (T) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that with the influx of editors who tend to edit the Plot section, it may be best to be somewhat hands-off until the activity dies down. Eventually, we'll be able to formulate a stable Plot section. Just not this weekend... or the next? :) (By the way, to start a new discussion on a talk page, click "new section" at the top. When you edit the last section, it looks like you're potentially leaving a comment there instead of starting a new section. Just giving a heads-up!) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing it at midnight tonight and when I return I'll most likely be trimming this (currently) 1408 word plot down quite a bit. I have no doubt there are a lot of extraneous details in this section at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are, but I was thinking more like Erik in that The Big Bag O' Crazy™ is about to be upended on this article, and it might be best to step back, not get splashed by the ensuing editorial cannonballs, and await 'til they get tired. Maybe that's bad faith, I don't know. I'll sandbox a trimmed plot and provide a link to it here, so folk can check it out. I've seen the film already, so I think I can get the process started. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And a revised (and subsequently added) plot synopsis can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...and its grown again. :) I like the suggestion above of not duking it out for the opening weekend, since this appears to be massively popular and in the media--every major pruning will just grow right back. As an aside (I've seen the film), Dark Knight is so dense I don't know how short this can be really stripped down still without skipping over many major story aspects. The story is at least (maybe more) dense than the plot of Nolan's other film, The Prestige, and thats a pretty long plot write up. rootology (T) 06:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down to just under 700 words. The movie wasn't that complex - the majority of what was in that section was extraneous details about each plan the Joker had. We don't need to know how he escapes jail, just that he escapes jail. The bit about the hostages from the bus...minor. There was also quite a bit of POV wording and dramatized text. For example, do we need "the burned-out husk of the building where Rachel died", or is "the building where Rachel died" sufficient? Or, "The Joker acknowledges that Batman really is indeed incorruptible but that Dent is no longer the white knight; he has unleashed the scarred man on the city." changed to "The Joker acknowledges that Batman really is incorruptible, but that he has unleashed Dent's madness upon the city." - same point, just less descriptives.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a big mistake that I read this section when I haven't even seen the film yet. Gary King (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to the article discussion before then probably is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the Joker's fate is not mentioned in the plot section. It's a pretty important plot element. (Haven't seen it - not going to see it - too suspenseful for me.) Ronstew (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New images

First of all, I would like to see about replacing the current image of the Joker, since what we are using is a very early image. Here are some alternatives: 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, to be able to show Batman, James Gordon, and Harvey Dent, American Cinematographer provides critical commentary:

One important scene on the roof of police headquarters provides a glimpse into the efficient and flexible mode of working that Nolan and Pfister maintained in spite of the sprawling size of the production. After putting their heads together about the best way to shoot several pages of dialogue involving Gordon, Batman and Dent, Nolan and Pfister decided to do the scene in a single circular Steadicam move, maximizing the Chicago skyline in the background. “In the story, these three men form a triumvirate, and it was very important to bind them together and show them in this massive environment,” says Nolan.

This scene can be seen here and would be useful as a thematic shot instead of a technical shot (production design, art design, costume design). This photo could break up the wall of text in the "Cast and characters" section. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

#2 would be great for the make-up and effects stuff, about how he's not skin-bleached but made up, and #3 would be great for Ledger's interpretation or a plot photo. IMO, at least. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How would #3 fit with an interpretation? I was thinking that one Joker image would be enough, and it should be relatively clear. Regarding "plot photos", I would actually discourage such usage. Screenshots are permissible when accompanied by critical commentary (per this), so I think that they are pretty easily challenged by NFC enforcers if they are found in the Plot section without any secondary-source support. I'm working up a draft for MOSFILM to suggest how non-free images could be implemented, so feel free to join the discussion there. Are you OK with the "triumvirate" thematic shot, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think either the first two images would be good replacements for the Joker, the second being a little better than the first because it shows more of the degeneration of his make-up which was a part of what they were going for with the character. I'm always hesistant about pictures in the cast section, and basically dislike them in the plot because they rarely have real critical commentary in that section (i.e. they're probably better in some other section). I think we can go ahead and implement that pic of Batman, Dent and Gordon for the cast section, because it could use a little eye dressing. That, or find a really good quote for a quote box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "triumvirate" shot work better in the Cast section than anywhere else, though? We have focused on the new design of Batman and the design of the Joker in the "Design" section, so any images directly related to their costumed appearances would go there. With Nolan expressing the intent to "bind them together", it seems that the "triumvirate" shot is as good as any to get a look at the "normal" Harvey Dent and James Gordon. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was talking about when I said go ahead and use it. I think you could probably pass the critical commentary on it for use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I missed that addition... I think we can include it after a little rewrite of "Cast and characters" to indicate the "triumvirate" theme between Batman, Harvey Dent, and James Gordon. I put up some suggestions at /to do, so feel free to add or revise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

semi protection

As crazy as it sounds, I think we should take it off. A lot of new people could be introduced to Wikipedia this weekend, here. If the vandalism gets too over the top, it can be reprotected. rootology (T) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this, since we should have enough eyes on this article to seek re-protection if the vandalism is overwhelming. Others' thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I love All the Crazy™. I even have Wikipedia: The Board Game. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. We can all watch and revert out the vandals and the worst of it. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the request has been there on WP:RPP for over seven hours. Gary King (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of figured something would have come up. As the movie has been out now as well in the US for... well, people should be getting out of midnight shows in the next 30 minutes, can some admin reading this just unprotect? :) rootology (T) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot issues (plot details)

"Batman speeds off to save Rachel while Gordon and the police head after Dent."

"Batman arrives and rescues Dent just as the building explodes, but the left side of Harvey's face is burned during the explosion. Gordon does not make it to Rachel in time, who is caught in the blast."

"As Dent threatens to kill Gordon's family to pay for the death of Rachel, Batman convinces him to judge him (Batman) for not saving Rachel."

This requires some serious clarification.71.170.13.9 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the Plot will have copyediting problems over the next few days as new or updated info rolls in. Gary King (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear? It's all rather straight forward. Unless you can provide a reasoning for why you think it needs clarification, just saying that doesn't really help us understand what is so confusing. The only thing I can see that needs clarification is the exploding buildings, and I added that the Joker detonates them so that it's clear that it wasn't a random moment that they went off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The clarification is that the Joker switched the addresses on Batman.

What makes you think that the Joker switched addresses? I didn't see any evidence for that interpretation. It seemed to me that it's more likely, and in-character, that Batman actually chose to go after (and save) Dent, and that his "Rachel!" dialogue was just a red herring by Nolan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.2.2 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The film makes him think that. As in, the events of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.32.93 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That bit of information is miniscule. I've kept it anyway, but reworded it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong, Batman meant to save Rachel, not Dent. (Gordon: Who are you going after? Batman: Rachel. Gordon: Ok we'll get Dent) It doesnt get any clearer then that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite disagree; we are not explicitly told that and, as there seems to be dissent as to interpretation, we should likely not play the OR dicing game. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's summary of the dialogue is correct. Joker switched the info, to mess with them more. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. There is no room for interpretation. The movie tells us that Batman is going to go save Rachel: Batman tells Gordon that he is going to save Rachel and Gordan then says he will go save Dent, its in the dialog. If Batman suddenly decides en route that it would be better to save Dent, then Batman and Gordon would have showed up in the same place. The Joker switched them, no doubt about it. Lawrencethomas3 (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's repeated use of torture and his elaborate use of invasive surveillance are key events and reveal the Dark Knight's dark side. These incidents ought to be mentionable in passing to create a more rounded understanding of the movie's motif. Just because Batman did something morally dubious should not make it unmentionable even if it is the character's fans who primarily edit the Batman pages. --Nihilozero (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face's fate? (plot details)

In the plot section, it said that he dies in the end. I don't recall them ever revealing for certain what his fate was. While they did tell the public that he died, it was obvious that they were lying to the public, as they said that he died before becoming Two-Face. If they lied about that, then they could just have easily been covering up that he is still alive and locked up in Arkahm. But then again, he really could be dead. I really didn't see anything to suggest either scenario. If somebody can find some evidence to prove whether he was dead or unconscious in the final scene, then i'd love to here it.The Great Morgil (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing too much analyzing of their "lies". Neither of the two made mention that he was alive either, and that they were going to "hide" him away somewhere. The memorial was for him, because he was dead. Please do not turn this into another Eddie Brock death scene moment. He fell off the building (he wasn't wearing protective armor like Batman), Batman turned his face and he didn't respond, they talk about him as if he was dead, there is a memorial service held in honor of his death...all evidence (at the moment) points to him being dead. Just because you don't see them bury the body doesn't mean that he's alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should your opinion hold anymore credability then his? Ive seen Dark Knight twice already and its VERY possible that Dent is alive. Dent was a symbol of hope for Gotham and they cant risk letting anyone know that he was corrupted, dead OR alive... not to mention that wasnt a very far fall and do you really think Nolans stupid enough to waste Two Face like that when he had barely even scratched the surface of what he is capable of now that hes being played by Aaron Eckhart. Dent lives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's true. I just saw Dent eating sloppy sandwiches with Elvis. ;)

We are led to believe he is dead. Everything points to him being dead. The film treats him as if he were dead. Therefore, to avoid OR, he is dead until we learn otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What possibility? The fact that he fell a great distance, with no padding, on his back? The fact that Batman turned his face and he wasn't breathing or showing any signs of life? The fact that they discussed what they should do to preserve his image? The fact that Gotham holds a memorial service in his honor for dying? Riiight, there is every bit a chance that he's still alive. If they decide to "resurrect" him, and say he was really alive but they kept him in some secret location (retcon anyone?) then we can say his "apparent" (and even then, I don't like going back into movies that have been retconned and changing the info to reflect the new stuff). Please stay away from original research. For all intents, at the moment, Two-Face is dead. There was no shred of evidence to suggest that he may still be alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bignole, guess what? You didnt write the movie. Therefore everything you are saying is specualtion and your opinion, and nothing more... Dent easily could have been knocked out cold and badly injured but still survive, and thats the bottom line, Dents fate is not set in stone. You mentioned the memorial service and preserving his image... well do you think it would be a good idea to show all of Gotham the new Harvey Dent (whether Batman took the blame for the murders or not) it would be very clear to Gotham that Dent has gone insane and become corrupt... so of course they would announce him dead and put him in Arkham.. kind of like how they announced Gordon was dead (he even let his own family believe he was dead) to trick the Joker, so what makes you think everything ive said is an impossibility?... your acting like a child. Im not going to sit he and argue with you as your mind seems pretty set but for everyone thats not as close minded as you, there is plenty of room for speculation and like ive said before I very much doubt that Nolan would kill off such an interesting character when his debut for actually becoming "Two Face" was short lived in the film... there is much more room for Dent to grow and threaten Gotham and its residents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, and when you have some evidence to suggest that he isn't dead (like a movie that doesn't mourn his death) then we can talk about it again. Until then, there is nothing left to talk about. Wikipedia DOES NOT speculate. We base everything off of the facts. The FACT remains that he was presented in film as dead. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They did not present anything other than that. You are the one speculating as to whether or not they lied. Personally, I would like for him to be alive, because I would like to see more of him. Unfortunately, that was not what they showed on screen. So...since we do not speculate on Wikipedia, and he was shown to be "dead" (whether they retcon that death or not), as far as this plot section is concerned he died. Have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever man im done arguing you can have your Wiki page hahahaha but even so im not speculating... Dents fate was not set in stone, but say whatever you want. peace.

Nothing is set in stone in a movie, that's why they call it fiction. That's why we have retconning, so they can go back and change things as they like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sign your comments please. Also, I now agree with Bignole. Dent's fate is clear in the film even if they bring him back in the next one for a surprise "I'm not really dead" scene. I think we need to semi-protect the page form anons--FilmFan69 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was an anon do you think id be taking the time to come back and reply to these comments, im at work I cant sign, sorry. And im not trying to be an a hole either but im telling you Dents not dead ive already seen an interview with Aaron Eckhardt stating that he cant wait to play Two-Face again.. Look it up on youtube.

"Anon" is merely to indentify you as anonymous. Even Anon's come back repeatedly. As for Eckhardt, YouTube is not a reliable source of info. Also, even Eckhardt is aware that in fiction, no one is ever truly dead. It isn't the first time that they kill someone off in a film and then bring them back later. You also don't know if Eckhardt wasn't merely stating that so that he wouldn't give away that he character dies in the film. It's all speculation. We base our opinion on what the film actually shows, and that was Dent's death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what anon means... obviously. Also, please refrain from sending me private messages as I do not wish to engage in a private conversation with you, and nothing you can say is going to change the fact that the movie did not portray Dents death, simply his corruption and wickedness. Have a good day, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the Imax film, his chest is clearly moving in it. ETHAN SMITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.172.151 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Ethan Smith, ill be seeing it for the third time (1st time on IMAX) tommorow so after that ill come back here to verify that his chest was moving, not that I doubt it at all. - The "Anon guy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be offended by the anon comment. It's simply the only way Wiki can be controlled and tracked. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And just because his chest is moving doesn't mean Dent isn't dead. It just means that Eckhardt didn't actually die. He's not a zen master able to control his breathing and heartbeat. -Stuthomas4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is too much speculation and Original Research here. Seeing the movie just come out there is nothing definite or hard fact until the DVD actually comes out or if Nolan reveals anything else about Two-Face. The only thing Nolan has stated is that he doesnt know who is going to be the villian in the next film which idk if that means if Two-Face is dead or not. Wait till a source does come out to improve the article but discussion of this topic is ur guys decision. Just put something in the article that says he is neither dead or alive for now or something if you get what i mean. Hey to make things more interesting Rachel Dawes wasn't shown dead so she might be alive or not also as of Harvey. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dent was CLEARLY shown breathing. Unless there is proof that he is dead, it shouldn't be written in the article that he died.

Actors have to breathe. If they talk as if the character is dead, the entry should say he's dead. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Can you please give us a link to the interview that shows Eckhart saying that he "Cant wait to play Two Face again?

Also, in movies they usualy use dummies or the actors hold their breath to be dead. BUT if he is shown breathingthen he is prolly alive! Maroni fell from higher and it didnt kill him!66.175.180.102 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's original research to speculate that the character is alive based on the contention that you can see Eckhardt breathing. Drop it people! Read this--FilmFan69 (talk)

It is also original research to assume he is dead. Wikipedia is about FACTS, and until it is proven either way, we should not mention his "death" at all. Kris (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's just say he fell to the ground with no mention of dead or alive. Currently it doesn't even mention that he fell off the ledge. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's playing into the same fan ambiguity that was the problem in the beginning. Gordon and Batman speak of him as if he died; the city mourns him as if he died; unless there is a source from Eckhart or Nolan (or anyone) explicitely stating that he did not die, then we go by what the film shows and that is the death of Dent. If you just say he fell to the ground then it brings in the question of "Well, what happened to him?" Then you add speculation into the motivation of Batman and Gordon because you'd have to say that the city mourns him "as if he were dead". That suggests that he is still alive, which we do not know. Also, none of this "the fall was short" or "Maroni's fall was higher" because it's a subjective interpretation of the distance, one that cannot be accurate given that we never saw exactly how far Maroni's height was. Given my own perception, Dent appeared to be atleast 70-80 feet in the air, which can be deadly. But that's my own interpretation, and not relevant. The only thing relevant is what is shown, NOT what is not shown (pardon the double negative). We are not given any inclination that they are hiding Dent, that he is still alive, or anything. All we know is that Batman and Gordon discuss what will happen when the city finds out about his actions, and then we see the city mourning his death. That suggests that he died. Whether that is the truth or not is irrelevant, because we know that verifiability is not truth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He's right. The films says he's dead. Interpreting his breathing doesn't enter into it. Interpreting the height doesn't enter into it. All those comments are, in the end, irrelevant. If it doesn't fit, you must...uh...call him dead. --FilmFan69 (talk)

Although I do completely agree with you on the subject that Dent is dead, he did only fall about 20-30 feet, and he did only just appear, as Scarecrow returned after only briefly appearing as his whole figure (though it would have been better in my opinion if they did more with his character). So I'm not against taking out that he died, but it should be further looked into in the future, which I'm sure all of us will look forward to in the future. Also, enough with mentioning Anonymous, even though he considers himself a "Dark Knight", as some might call him. 67.175.101.88 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly BIGNOLE, your opinion is not fact. It's not confirmed whether Two-Face is dead. It's better to leave his fate out of the article. 99.226.53.169 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon, please read the policy on verifiability. You are confusing verifiable evidence with truth. The film does not depict him as being alive, it actually suggests that he died so that is what we report. If you leave it ambiguous then you are automatically insinuating that he is alive, because you are not giving him a defined outcome - something the film did. It may not have been 100% defined, but it was still defined to the point that the city was mourning his death. If they choose to retcon that in another film, so be it, they've left it in a manner that they could easily retcon his death and say that he was alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why do you choose to leave him as dead in the article while your comments in the edit section says that we're still discussing this? 99.226.53.169 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's throughly irrelevant whether we can draw a conclusion based on the return of another character or what the possible intentions were of Batman or Gordon. You have to rely on what the film tells you. It would probably violate a wiki policy but maybe it belongs in another section called "speculation" but that doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. You MUST rely on wiki policy which has been carefully honed by scores of editors over a long period of time. Speculation is a violation of WP:OR. Your only recourse is to start a blog off-site and talk about it there. This is not the place. --FilmFan69 (talk)

And just in case some clever fan-boy decides to trot out a consensus argument, that doesn't trump the wiki policies. --FilmFan69 (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Because he fate was listed as dead before this became such a big issue. It's sitting at "original version" at the moment. At least four registered editors have commented that it should be left as "dead". I can show you a talk page transaction with the Admin that protected the page even stated that he was dead. The evidence suggests that he was dead, whether that's "true" or not is irrelevant. The same goes for whether or not Nolan plans to use the character in the future (which we do not know yet). This personal observation of his breathing, which I did not notice when I saw the film (and was bummed that he died) is not evidence of anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I post a suggestion. After that sentence where it states that he is "dead" would adding the citable tag right after that help readers that this subject hasnt been fully proven yet and that we are still looking for a source where official news proves that or not? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 04:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since the film has him dead at the end. The speculation is that he is still alive. Nothing actually suggests that, it actually suggests he is dead. There isn't going to be some "source" saying that he is dead, unless Nolan himself one day states it in an interview. Which may or may not ever happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But, I don't think the plot summary should say Dent is dead. It's pretty interpretive, I think the fact Two-face is such a prominent villain in Batman, and the film, and that he hasn't fully developed his multiple personality disorder means he'd return. Keep in mind when he was on the ground, his eye was closed on his normal side of the face, making it possible he's just unconscious.

The fact they talk about keeping it a secret could mean multiple things, after all, if he was unconscious they wouldn't be able to incarcerate him either due to him being so well known, and them wanting to keep the illusion that he was a hero.

I'm not saying include what I said in the article at all, I just think describing him as dead is wrong.

I agree. There is no source, no evidence present to indicate Dent is dead, nor that he is alive. The article should not reflect either stance, simply remove the words "killing Dent", and nothing changes. What is factual is that Dent is knocked off the building, and that the boy is saved, anything else is supposition and therefore OR. Besides, refusing to make a judgement call on Dent's living or dying is in keeping with the movie, which does not make a firm statement either way, as the multiple arguments for both stances can indicate. For what it's worth, I believe personally that Dent died, but cannot say that it is definitively proven in the movie without it being original research. Remove the two words and nothing changes in the article, except that the edit warring stops. Gene S. Poole 04:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The film portrays him as dead. Simple as that. If you say that he merely fell then YOU are suggesting that he is alive (something that is never even closely resembled on screen).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to state that the character is dead does not imply a belief that he is alive, it is simply not addressing it either way. You state that the film portrays him as dead, I suggest that this is your interpretation. The film holds a memorial for Harvey Dent, this does not confirm the death of the character either way. If he had landed on a pile of broken glass or a spike was protruding through his chest I would be in agreement, but the film makes no portrayal at all. Gene S. Poole 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you say, "Dent fell to the ground", and do not say that he died, then you are automatically implying that he survived - since you aren't saying that he fell 1000 ft to the ground (which would imply that he died since he would have been gumbo on impact). Since we do not have an exact height, simply saying he fell to the ground could mean that he fell 10 ft (not lethal, or even a high chance of bone breakage). Hence, simply stating that the fell insinuates that he survived the fall.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, but I read him as NOT dead. My understanding, and that of the people I saw it with, was that they'd be hiding him away to heal. I saw no flowers at the 'memorial', and the dialogue at the scene, and the speech at the service all left me with the impression that they'd be hiding him and patching him up. I'm afraid we're going to have to wait for a source either way, and until then, write it as ambiguous. Simply say like 'standing by Dent, laying still on the ground, Batman and Gordon conspire to have Batman blamed for Dent's actions, preserving Dent's reputation and his prosecutions.' That avoids Wikipedia editors making a judgement one way or the other. ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be splitting hairs here or anything, but However you slice it, Dent is dead. What we should be discussing is the fate of Two Face. I'm sure it can be verified within the context of the Batman universe a billion times, but Dent died the moment Two-Face was born. The memorial they have for Harvey Dent does not preclude the survival of Two Face, as either way they would be having the memorial. (Which is not sourcable, I know.) Batman and Gordon's discussion on what to do with Two Face gives credit to either argument, leaving us once more with a null sum. The only that that is verifiable is that Two Face fell from the building, and that there was a memorial later on. Anything else is original research. Implications are not verification. Nor are inferences. Gene S. Poole 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Why would they hide him? Taking responsibility for a dead man's crimes is one thing, but kidnapping him to hide him from the public is another. I don't think Batman and Gordon would do such a thing. But, I could go with a more descriptive analysis of the scene, like you had. That would leave the ambiguity problem of insinuating that he was alive out of the equation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Him being 'dead' is only how you interpreted it. They never said Harvey Dent is dead, except to the public. The situation would have to be treated the same way if he lived or died. He was a beacon of hope, they could never give him back to Gotham as a damaged and deformed psycho path.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sorry, but I'd like to point out that we have, or had, citation on Nolan looking at some of the oldest material. In the oldest Two face materials, he was cured. We don't know his plans, we've got the possibility of an interview where Eckhart says he wants to do it again... We can write it ambiguously, and clarify as we get sources. It's really that simple. You've got a few 'Lived!' folks, a couple 'Died!' folks, and a couple 'Ambiguous.' folks. Only one is the right choice for this project, despite what you may choose to believe happened in that scene. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For Bignole wonderin why bats and Gordon would hid the existance of Two face from the public is because of various reasons that was mentioned in the film. The most prominant one is to not let the stuff that Dent did as DA be undone. From what I got from the dialogues in the film, if word went out that Dent is a criminal, the ppl he busted right before his "death," would be let go of prision.

Furthermore, Gordon has lied about the whereabouts of Dent during the hospital scene, saying that if the public ask, tell em that Dent is safe. --Doomzaber (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I whole heartily agree. My personal belief is he is alive, but I'm not asking for the article to represent that view. I'm just saying as it stands, it can't be said that he is dead or alive, it should just describe what visually happened. Oh, and just more food for thought - "Batman tackles him over the side of the building, killing Dent and saving Gordon's son." That would seem kinda fundamentally flawed, seeing as Batman's only rule is he won't kill, which is why he allows The Joker to blow up half the city.

I suppose ThurnX is right. It's a stalemate. We need a neutral nonspecific answer. Even though I think he's dead. I should know I'm Chris Nolan. HAH. Sorry - anyway, lets find a neutral acceptable wording. --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How's this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. 12.37.71.165 (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

... wait. I was the voice of reason? shit. my rep is ruined. (Looks good to me.) ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And since this issue is closed for now, maybe we can turn our attention to getting people to sign their comments...like this -> --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

@Bignole - Yes it possible for Nolan to actually announce that he is dead or alive. Wait till the DVD comes out hehe. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, it is exceptionally clear that the implication is that he is dead, get over it. Saying he is not dead is plain and simple speculation, which as I understand, holds no merrit on this site. He is presented to us, just shy of being on a silver platter, as being dead. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is OR to presume that he is dead. The filmmakers took SPECIAL CARE to PURPOSEFULLY leave out whether he was actually dead or alive. At the end of the movie, ALL we have is a memorial service which serves to falsify the end details of "Harvey Dent." Thus, "Harvey Dent" may be "dead," there is no conclusive indication that "Two-Face" is. The article should read something to that effect: "Harvey/Two-Face fell off a building with Batman. Batman survived the fall and it is unknown whether Two-Face did also. A memorial service was held to maintain Harvey Dent's good image." Assuming that he is dead OR alive is original research. We must go with what we are given. We are given nothing to conclude EITHER way. Rooot (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face is not dead according to this information: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Scoop-Batman-3-Story-Details-8738.html A.S. Williams (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone pointed out that Sal Maroni pretty much fell by a similar distance and survived. Also, Dent survived that car crash with Maroni. Yes, the film "says" that he is dead but the same film also "said" that Gordon was dead. There is no way of knowing either way. Personally, I am keeping up hope that Two-Face is alive, because there is just too much material for a mere 40 minutes in a movie where the Joker is the main villain. But this fact doesn't dispute my logic. We don't he's dead until Nolan says he is dead. In Spider-Man 3 we saw Eddie Brock become incinerated. We just saw a moitionless Dent. Anyone else hear of being knocked-out? Anyway, the whole discussion board is being torn apart by people who think their word is it when they say he's dead or alive. However, he is undisputably one or the other, whcih is why we should wait.--71.234.50.57 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that for all intents and purposes, the audience is supposed to assume that he is dead, until a reliable source says otherwise. Gary King (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it clearly says, "related messages between me and a long time scooper and friend of the site" - the operative word being "scooper". That means that it is not official, but merely what someone heard through the grape vines. Since Nolan has said that he doesn't know if he will do a third film, and that he hasn't got a story, how could this scooper already know where they are pulling future stories from? As for Maroni's fall, you never actually see how far to the ground Maroni is, so how can you make that judgement (and that's what it is, a personal judgement) that it's the same height? Dent was the only one wearing a seat belt when the car crashed, hence his survival. Regardless, the article reflects exactly what is seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because scoops are always wrong all of the time. I simply said according to this information. In light of the actual film, this information makes sense. The Joker is alive in the film and the information indicated he would be a major feature of the next film. With the death of Ledger, that is now impossible and therefore, they would need to bring back Two-Face if they had the intention of carrying a major villain over. I do not understand why you are so adamant about it when we can't say for certain that he is dead. A.S. Williams (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to operate off of what the film itself shows - anything involving interpretation, analysis, or speculation simply has no place within the plot summary, as per NOR. Had the film wanted to leave Dent's death ambiguous, it would have done so more obviously. If you have reliable sources (as per our RS policy) which indicate future plans for the series, that can be mentioned elsewhere. As per WP:V, "the truth" is not what we're about - verifiability is more important. Now as far as Nolan's thoughts, opinions, or motivations...that actually isn't useful - it's like asking David Chase what happened at the end of the Sopranos - whatever he personally believes happens to Tony is not relevant, because had he wanted that made explicit, he would have. (See also intentional fallacy.) In short, we have to rely on what the work itself says - not on what we may wish to infer it does. This isn't a statement on what is or isn't "true". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Dent's death was part of the whole point of the movie. And significant with the quote Batman reiterates at the end in his chat with Gordon. Basically "Blame all those random killings on me. That way the city won't know about Dent's corruption, and all the work he put towards giving Gotham hope won't go to waste." That way Dent gets to "die a hero," while Batman lives "long enough to become the villain." Icarus203 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not going to be a consensus. We've got it written in such a way that it satisfies most people. Until further notice I think we need to leave it be. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that Dent is dead, and it should be written as such. The movie gave the impression that he is dead. It wasn't confirmed, but by that logic you could also say that the Joker is dead, since they never showed him being pulled up by the GCPD. He could've cut the rope himself and then died. Agent Chieftain (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that several editors believe Dent might still be alive and several editors who believe Dent is definitely dead, and considering Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, I believe the best course of action is state that Gordon released that Dent was dead. This way Wikipedia isn't saying he's dead, but isn't saying he's alive. Personally, I think that Dent is dead, but I've seen too many times that when the producers do not explicitly declare someone is absolutely dead, then it's enough to bring a character back to life. Heck, in this movie, they SAID and most believed that Gordon was dead, but that was all a setup. Granted, that was a different situation than with Dent, but since there were only implications that he died, we should only state that Gotham believes that Dent died and Batman killed those people. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to take the movie at face value - they talk of him in the past tense immediately afterwards, he is given a memorial service, and so on. Had Nolan wanted to suggest that he wasn't dead...he would have. Anything else is fan speculation, and while interesting, really has no place in this article, as per WP:V. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By the same WP:V, since it is not explicitly stated, only strongly implied that Dent is dead, it can be speculation that he is dead. 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone can get their paws on the novelization of the movie, it might express more clearly the fate of Dent... 69.127.231.144 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the sentence "A memorial is held for Dent who is presumably dead though speculation remains as to whether this is a planned ruse and his character will reappear in an as yet unannounced sequel." --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is what we're trying to avoid. Stating that there is speculation has no place in the article. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But there's no way around it and it doesn't violate the article to say that indeed there is speculation. The fans are speculating. The article would be prefectly NPOIV in stating that there IS speculation. --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not unless there's a source other than the talk page to back it up. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in a moment with sources.--FilmFan69 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Forums and IMDB aren't good sources, btw. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the article shouldn't speculate. And this addition does not add to the speculation. The movie makes it look as if Dent is presumably dead but the article can truthfully state that the speculation remains in the community at large. It's like an article on a subject that has a conspiratorial alternative theory. Like Oswald et al. Articles can state what the prevailing wisdom is then say that "speculation remains". --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quasi, you're confusing the prohibition about speculation in an article with the idea of stating TRUTH that there IS speculation. Saying there IS speculation existing among fans, not just here but elsewhere, is not speculation in and of itself. That is simple FACT. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. It is verifiable reality that speculation exists. --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So if he was alive than they would not be able to arrest him because they blamed the deaths on batman meaning they would have to let a killer stay on the streets.He is assumed to be dead until stated otherwise.

I point to several places where the speculation exists: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Noe of this vilates WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL. It is a simple fact that speculation exists. That is not to be confused with speculation in the article. These are two different things. --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker Figure section

I removed this section, but forgot to explain why, and now its removal has been reverted. It is horribly written and is all original research with no citations whatsoever. I am going to remove it again, now that I have explained why. If you feel that it is an integral part of the article (which I say it most certainly is not) I suggest re-writing it and finding a few sources before reverting my edit. Thanks! 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed and only re-incorporated in some aspect of the "Marketing" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, I just saw the mass blanking and reverted on instinct. I never saw the section before, and your comment just now made me go check it. I agree, it should be removed. It's completely unsourced, and would be better served as a minor blip in another section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, sorry I didn't explain myself in the first place. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry it took so long to realize that the section should not have been there in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

worth mentioning

should it be worth mentioning the films 9.7 out of 10 out of 4500 votes on IMDB? According to the stats, 80 percent of people who reviewed that film gave it a 10 out of 10. It's the highest rating of any movie ever there, and once they use some formula ( i think they remove the top 100 votes and the bottom 100 votes or something like that) it's #4 on the voting for highest rated film, eclipsed only by The Godfather, the godfather part 2, and the Shawshank redemption. More info can be found here & here- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because we don't use IMDb polls. They are unreliable, as are most online poll voting systems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, and am in fact a little more draconian about it. I wou;d purge all voting until the movie has left theatres, so as to avoid having to constantly modify numbers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, user ratings definitely should be excluded per WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Heck, even Transformers was in the Top 250 at IMDb at one time... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally concur. But if I ever get a film, you all have to vote for it (and put it in the article). --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy and game theory

I'm dubious that this can be added today without violating NOR, but editors may want to keep a heads up in the coming weeks for reliable sources which discuss the film's use of certain philosophical thought experiments and game theory concepts such as the prisoner's dilemma and trolley problem, amongst others. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we could anticipate such analysis from pop culture sources, but from what I've noticed with films, academic sources' analysis do not emerge for some time after a film's release (by that, I mean years). With this film's prominence, though, I wouldn't be surprised to see some academic coverage in the next few months or so. Probably would be a good idea to keep an eye on sources like Film Comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of mention either in mainstream critics' reviews, or maybe as a tie-in piece in a magazine or academic journal to cash-in on the movie's popularity. (eg, Scientific American's recent piece on what would be physically and mentally required to actually train to become Batman in real-life.) Anyway, I think I've netted one already - Trolley problem mentioned by a blog affiliated with the Dallas paper. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel Section Moved/Merge

I have a suggestion that can we move the Batman (film series)#Future section from the Series Article to this article? It would way easily accessible than just put it on a different page for people to hunt the info down instead of this one. Also the section is mainly referring to Nolans films than the other Batman films released. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, but we could put a {{Further}} template somewhere... the question is, where? Perhaps at the end of "Production", with the mention of Bale being signed on for three films (though Nolan was only signed on for two)? Then point to all the current reports? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree because When I was looking through the Templates below I couldn't find a link to it and u had to type in certain things in the Wiki Search Bar to get to it. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical release

I've found there to be a mistake here it says: 'and will be released on the following Friday, July 25, 2008 (BST), in the United Kingdom, at the Odeon Leicester Square and nationally, with "previews" on the previous day, Thursday, July 24, 2008.[110]'

I have an advance ticket for Wedensday the 23rd And from the promotion I've seen lately and what it says on Wiki it's self The date of the film coming out has moved forward to the 24th PaulV15590 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm not against Trivia sections but they're subject to the same wiki rules. This one has no sources. I move to delete it or comment it out unless someone can add sources to it. I've added a sourcing template just above the section. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I know this should really be placed in another section (definitely, another one), but can we start having Chicago Tribune movie reviews, as Comcast generally uses them in their quick sections about films, and are used very often in many other things as well. I'm sorry if it's strange to mention, but its been bugging me for a while and I just wanted to get it off of my chest. 67.175.101.88 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also they just gave it 4 stars, a rarity with the Tribune. 67.175.101.88 (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's Dark Side (plot details)

The summary of the movie failed to mention the elaborate cellphone surveillance technique employed by Batman (which was used twice and and caused one character, Lucius Fox, a serious ethical dilemna). The summary also neglected to mention either instance of Batman's use of torture (which he used at least twice -- once on the mob boss whose legs he broke, and another time in the police station when he locked the door and "interrogated" The Joker). Failure to mention these things neglects key incidents which play into the very title of the film. Batman is a morally complex character and not a run-of-the-mill hero by normal standards. His vigilante tactics are not only questioned within the film, but ought to be mentioned here for a well-rounded look at the character. I suspect that fans of Batman edit this page and want to portray him unquestionably as a hero -- but fans do not have a neutral point of view in that regard. I find the same problem on the more comprehensive character page, but his actions in this particular movie should be mentionable even if they are less than heroic (but he does engage in questionable activities in the comic books and other media as well). --Nihilozero (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The cellphone bit is not relevant to the overall plot. Neither is the torture bit. It would be good for other sections, when talking about what Nolan was attempting to capture with the character but the plot section is supposed to summarize the film as a whole, not mention specific scene that YOU feel was influential to the character. It's unnecessary in the plot section. There seems to be the problem of people wanting to mention every scene that occurs, no matter if it's brief or not. "Torturing" the Joker (which, wasn't as much torture as he did to Maroni) and Maroni in the film are good things to mention when discussing the character's development in the film in other sections of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've placed them back in, but trimmed what is being said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you glossed over what happened. Batman blocked the door with a chair to proceed in beating the joker. This was clearly torture (which was the Jokers goal) and that's why the police were shocked and trying to get in to the room. Torture is a more apt description of what was happening since that's technically what it was and that's how the characters reacted to it. By just noting that "he beat the Joker" you then fail to note the observable moral aspect that was present in the reaction of the characters. By simply mentioning torture, you sum up what was happening more clearly and you don't need to mention the other characters' reaction. As with the Maroni torture scene, this action is part of the character development and IS a plot device used to justify the very title of the film. The cellphone surveillance was used twice with great visual effect and AGAIN... it was used to call the characters ethics and morality into question. Lucius Fox stating his intention to quit his role as CEO is indicative of that fact. But again... you don't need to mention that dialogue if you simply state what it was... an elaborate, morally dubious, and intrusive surveillance technique -- which again serves the very title of the film. The simple facts of the events seem to sum up the situation better than vaguely noting that Batman tortured and used invasive surveillance techniques in some other section (which would probably just end up getting removed by fans who don't want to face the reality of their heroes dark side). --Nihilozero (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to be analytical, then I suggest getting references that mention these scenes and that analyze them. Then they can be put in their own "Analysis" section, which this article will surely need. Gary King (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the cellphone surveillance part should be added to the plot section. It is how Batman locates the Joker for the films finale. If anyone out there reads the actual comics, then they know how important that part of the movie is. Brother eye anyone? ~1WickedClown~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1WickedClown (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ARG Sites

Wondering if we should add all the confirmed Alternate reality game links to the Page on the Bottom or post all of the sites in the Marketing section or something like the Cloverfeild Article. I think they should be included to the article just for future reference. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather if we could find a specific website that lists all the ARG websites and link to that. Wikipedia is not a link farm, so I think it would be too much to list every website. Do you know of any website that can do this and meet WP:EL criteria? (Basically, let's not use a blog that lists them.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I Looked around. I think I found a blog site that gives a broad view of what sites are out there now BUT we are not going to use it lol. But I found another site that has some.

Possible Blog (Get a veiw of how much ARG sites are out there.

• Most of the ARG Sites(Not Using)

Official Sources

• Updates on The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing - New Gotham Times Released! New Gotham Times
• The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing Gets Very Real Rent-a-clown and Why so Serious
• New Joker Photo on WhySoSerious.com, RorysDeathKiss.com Launched RorysDeathKiss.com
• Why The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing is Absolutely Brilliant A Few More Others

The Main Sites that should go on the article though seeing there is SOOO much:

1. Why so Serious
2. Rorys Death Kiss
3. I Believe in Harvey Dent
4. The Gotham Times
5. Rent-a-Clown

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting annoying as editors keep removing the Links when I added a tag that states "Please go to Talk" If the links cant go in the External Link area they should go in the marketing area of the article at least. One or the Other --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 06:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

casualties (plot details)

Is it possible someone could fit the mentioning of Joker specifically killing a judge, Loeb and seemingly taking out Gordon? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The killing of Loeb is mentioned; the judge is not previously mentioned in the plot section so she should not be mentioned as being killed. If Gordon's fake death were mentioned then more bits would have to be added about the whole plan in order to capture the Joker. Gary King (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to "dupe" the reader. Gordon didn't die, so we don't need to say "Gordon was killed" and then later "Gordon's death is revealed to be a fake so that they can capture the Joker". Succinctness.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting reviews

There needs to be a reevaluation of the reviews section. In the larger scheme of things, what MTV.com and WGN-TV think of the film is irrelevant compared to what major publications/reviewers like The New York Times, Time, Roger Ebert, and so on think of the movie. Also, in several instances only the authors of the reviews are mentioned in the prose, and it's unclear which publication they are writing for. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I think these reviews were some of the first for the film, so a reevaluation is in order to use reviews from major publications. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise the section will soon be too big to handle. Gary King (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

#1 on IMDb's top 250

Is it worth mentioning in the article that The Dark Knight is ranked #1 on IMDb's top 250 movies?

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.165.116 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, its only been out for two days. Wait for a while and see if it is still number one (I would guess it will drop a little.) Rhino131 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; as much as I loved the film, it has a good chance of dropping. The people that watch the film first are generally the biggest fans, and then later on the more typical moviegoer will watch the film and perhaps rate it lower. Gary King (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't list anything from IMDb, for a few reasons. One, IMDb is considered unreliable, and we don't use it as a source for anything (not even cast information any longer). Two, it's an online poll, which are notorious for vote stacking. Yeah, it can block an IP after one vote, but places that use proxy servers don't have an issue of one IP address, thus someone can easily vote more than once. Third, movies move up and down IMDb's Top 250 all the time. Most popular movies hit the top at some point and then move down. It's not like AFI's Top 100 Movies of 2000s, or something like that. Lastly, the community voting is limited to just that, that community of IMDb. Why are those people that frequent IMDb so special that we need to consider THEIR opinion? It's usually not that many votes when you compare it to how many probably saw the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How is IMDb any less reliable than Wikipedia users at large? How do you quantify reliability? How would the theoretical vote stuffing work? Each registered user is given one vote per title. Non-registered users cannot vote. Each user's votes are stored in the profile for the user (preventing multiple votes from the same user), as well as tallied for the movie. Also, only frequent voters' votes are counted for Top 250 ranking purposes, and IMDb uses a (secret) algorithm to discard a certain percentage of votes at both extremes. The number of votes is also a mathematical factor in the ranking, so votes from infrequent voters would be even less likely to impact the ranking at this early point. All of these measures greatly minimize or prevent outright the kind of vote stuffing that you imply would happen. Furthermore, the opinion of IMDb voters is notable because IMDb is the world's largest online movie community. As cinema is a mass medium, the opinions of "regular guys" should be considered, not merely the elite subset of movie watchers called "critics," most of whom on Rotten Tomatoes are bloggers and non-professionals, or else employees of local TV stations who have little credibility or clout. The approximately 40 critics on Metacritic are hardly representative of national or international critical opinion. So what makes THESE PEOPLE so special? Rotten Tomatoes's Tomatometer scores for a movie also change all the time. WALL-E has vacillated between 96% and 97% over past three weeks. Box office is also not a very good indicator of public opinion. The Phantom Menace is popularly derided, but it made over $400M in its day. There must be some way for popular opinion to be noted in a section called "Reception," and IMDb, though skewed toward a certain demographic, is the best option that we have. You, sir, have no case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D17 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclude all user ratings that are not of a bona fide nature, especially per WP:MOSFILM#Critical reception. Appropriate grading from the audience would come from a source like CinemaScore, which said audiences gave Hellboy II a "B" and Hancock a "B+". The Dark Knight's ranking is clearly a result of vote stacking and demographic skew. Even Transformers was once in IMDb's top 250, and that is ridiculous for any cinephile. Let the numbers speak of the audiences' impression of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We can still say this is the first time a movie has debuted at number one on IMDb. While movies do fall later, this has never happened since the year 2000. I am not sure if it happened before, but I did not know about IMDb before then. IMDb may not be reliable but it is a big site, the first stop for movie information on the net. Lof of people regularly check IMDb rating before seeing movies, and the rating are discussed a lot when talking about good movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukna (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It placed number one at IMDb because of vote stacking and demographic skew, so such a ranking is very artificial. Thus, its significance is exaggerated. Let's keep an eye out for reliable sources, particularly major publications, to see how IMDb is covered, if at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb may not be reliable but - that's all that is relevant to this discussion. The quality of the information, not the quantity of users accessing it, is what is important. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's use of an intrusive surveillance device

I think it should be mentioned in passing for a few reasons. The first is that it was used twice in the film, with the second form of it being shockingly advanced. The use of this technology not only illustrates Batman's technological capabilities, but it is a key moment where the Dark Knight's ethics are pointed out and directly challenged by another character. It seems to me that this film is called "The Dark Knight" precisely because of these ethical shortcomings and morally dubious activities (like torture). Failure to mention these things for what they are are does a disservice to the reader who may not know anything about the film. Like the first film in the reboot series (Batman Begins), this film is largely about questioning the activities of Batman. Should he be a vigilante? Should he torture people to gain information? Should he turn everyone's cell phone into a live microphone which can create a realtime image map of the city? These are the questions begged by the film and failure to adequately convey the activities leading to those questions makes the summary on this page entirely inadequate. --Nihilozero (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above and it has been determined that it is not important enough to be mentioned. The movie is complex enough as it is, and I think the plot summarizes the film extremely well. We all have to remember that the point of this article is to provide an encyclopedic account of the film, not a plot that provides every detail. Gary King (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an important part to the film, unlike the last film, this is showing Bruce using his skills and intellect to help locate the Joker.--1WickedClown (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

IMAX presentation

I don't know how reliably sourced these can be at the moment (at least from online sources), but having just returned from an IMAX screening, I thought I'd note some details for future article revision:

1. When most feature films are presented in IMAX, the original format and aspect ratio are non-IMAX compatible, which usually means both a blowup and a cropping of sorts. This varies from film to film, but many crop to 1.85 or 1.66 in order to get closer to IMAX's 1.44 ratio. However, the fact that TDK used both 35mm and native IMAX formats created a dilemma for framing. In the case of the normal theatrical prints (35mm or digital), the IMAX frame was cropped to match the normal 2.39 frame. In the case of the IMAX print, however, the film has no consistent ratio - instead, the IMAX shots are shown in full IMAX format, while the rest of the film is presented in a wider ratio with the same horizontal length as IMAX, but less height than a full IMAX frame. (It looked closer to 1.85 than 2.39 to me, but I can't confirm it yet.)
2. Shots and scenes in full IMAX:

   Opening heist

   Establishing shots, especially overhead helicopter shots

   Lucius Fox's entrance to the Hong Kong building

   The armored car chase

   The Batpod racing to save Rachel/Dent

   Montage after Rachel's death

   All exteriors involving the Lamborghini/crash scene

   The hospital explosion scene

   Skyscraper fight (starting when the SWAT breaks in)

   Ending montage

Hopefully this can eventually all be sourced and integrated into the text given some further research. The unique multi-ratio IMAX presentation is the first time I'm aware that's been done. It makes sense, though, because staying with one ratio consistently will either vertically crop the IMAX shots like the normal prints did (negating much of their impact) or severely horizontally crop almost half of the frame from the 35mm shots, destroying their framing. I was pleasantly surprised, I must admit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

weekend box office

The 155 figure from a random WB exec[2], is technically only two days, not a full weekend yet, Sunday has not ended in North America yet. Should be corrected? Or wait for a better source?- chantessy 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really a three-day estimate. So it's a little misleading to call it a 'two-day' total. I would change it to reflect this for now, and put in the final figures on Monday or Tuesday. 12.183.126.18 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Slayer13

from Box Office Mojo: "http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm

"Studio estimates for the weekend are reported on Sunday mornings, generally between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Pacific Time and reflect estimated Friday and Saturday box office receipts plus a projection for Sunday." How about just remove it per WP:CRYSTAL and add the info on Monday? chantessy 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to include it and say "estimated" for now, then update it with the actual tally. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response about WP:CRYSTAL, it's appropriate to report the figures per this: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." I think that the estimated weekend performance would fall in this category, seeing how it's been reported in the press. It can be switched out by tomorrow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Two-Face

An editor recently added an image of Two-Face to the article, and I'm removing it because unlike plot details in a self-contained Plot section, such an image cannot be ignored so easily. Two-Face was obviously not displayed in the previews as opposed to the Joker, so I think we should apply some common sense and leave out the image for the time being. Maybe in a few weeks, we could restore the image. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restore The Harvey Dent character (pre Two-Face) was given a lot of screen time in the previews and the multiple trailers for The Dark Knight, epseically after Heath Ledger died. They obviously didn't show Two-Face as Two-Face because Christopher Nolan wanted to keep it a surprise as well as the graphic third-degree burns shown on the left side of his face, arguably being the most realistic take on the character (obviously, the burns would be too graphic to show in previews, especially on TV, without a disclaimer). And BTW, I was not the one who uploaded the image, I simply added it to the Dark Knight page after it appeared on the Two-Face page. Jgera5 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be left out on the basis of spoiler concerns, as per the general content disclaimer. However, if there isn't an appropriate fair use justification for its inclusion in the article regardless, then it would be fair to pull the image. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is a pretty significant difference between having a Plot section clearly contain plot details in a body of ~700 words and a blatantly clear image of an unadvertised character. I really would not mind including this image (I think the critical commentary exists, but could be boosted), but I am trying to consider potential backlash from readers who may not have seen the film, especially those from the United Kingdom and other territories in which the film has not been released. I suppose I am invoking WP:IAR in this case in exercising some consideration; having spoiler-ish images is not as commonplace as having spoiler-ish Plot sections that are not as visually captivating. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

trying to consider potential backlash from readers who may not have seen the film - this is not our concern. While I am not on either side of inclusion/exclusion, all I am saying is that spoiler considerations can not play a part in the decision. Playing IAR with the content disclaimer is not really acceptable in the same way that it arguably is with style guidelines. It's not our job to protect people from information. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)