Talk:The Dark Knight

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)

In Raleigh: "Security was tight at the door, with a secret service-esque force (foreshadowing?) checking all bags for any recording equipment." [1] chantessy 14:11, 22 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)

Just had a suggestion removed about the insertion of the David Denby review; I understand the Reception section of the page isn't supposed to 'lavish the film with praise', but the repeated mention of the same review by the same reviewer doesn't give an 'accurate portrayal of viewpoints', it's one guy's repeated viewpoint against seven or eight guy's single comments. In my humble opinion it'd make more sense to have Denby's critical review combined into a single response towards the end of the section, as if often done with other film Reception pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.156.156 (talk) 01:18, 28 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)

How about finding some of the notable quotes from the article, maybe from a critic, and make it stand out using the {{rquote|left|text|quoted person}} formula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeTheSpook (talk • contribs) 06:55, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

I would discourage that because I don't think it's easy to point out what quote is notable. It's difficult enough to choose what reviews would professionally criticize the film. I would say that the only time to include a quote is if we had a retrospective quote that reflected how it was received. For example, Fight Club (film)#Reception has a quote from 2001 about how the film was received in 1999. It's too soon to have anything like that for this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 22 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)

Is anyone willing to put in a Canadian voice? Peter Howell is a movie critic from the Toronto Star which is the most highly circulated newspaper in Canada.Parallax Dragon ^{T —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}

The critic/source doesn't have to be American (but it helps ;) to be credible or correct, and all neutral viewpoints are welcome, so by all means, add it in, but there just don't need to be an unlimited number of reviews or anything else in this article.cocoapropo (talk) 00:56, 23 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! [2] (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) Just to clear it up: Batman did go to save Rachel, the Joker switched the names on him. It's fairly clear from Batman's reaction to finding Dent and in his grief later. Also, the Joker wanted Dent saved, that had been his plan all along to turn Dent bad. So he's tells Batman, who literally jumps out of a building for her earlier, she's were Dent actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.84.80 (talk) 10:54, 28 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)

For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly approve of the scaled down plot section and the reserved language. Mykll42 (talk) 04:25, 25 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)

No, that is the wrong way to look at it. If Dent was meant to be dead then its an error on behalf of the actor in not controlling his breathing. You are confusing the actor and the performance too much. And to say that if they say he is dead he is also misleading. It takes more than talk. But I do agree, based on the movie, and the movie alone, without all this original research, Dent is dead.Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:59, 30 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)

No, it isn't. When you can say something based on onscreen evidence ie. characters saying he is dead, a memorial service, it isn't original research, its fact. Coupled with that there is no reliable on screen evidence to suggest he is still alive. if they put a scene in there with a ambulance speeding off to Arkham then perhaps... there would be doubt. But there isn't. So he is dead until something is said otherwise.Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:02, 30 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)

Section break 1

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)

Section break 2

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.1.137 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify that statement and sign your comments please? --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm so annoyed people keep saying well "I think this and so this should be...". It doesn't matter what you think or what your bias is!!! It's the truth that matters, and there is thusfar no indication either way. We have to wait until Nolan tell us what's up and that is that!--71.234.50.57 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

FilmFan69, the sources you posted are not reliable. Even if we have reliable sources, such interpretations of Two-Face's fate would be outside the intended descriptive claim of the film's plot summary and would belong elsewhere in the Wikipedia article. As the revision stands, the Plot section does not explicitly indicate Harvey Dent's death, and I think that there is a comfortable consensus to accept this. Any secondary sourcing would need to fit elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik. I'm aware of the reliability clause. But I hasten to point out that it's not like we're getting specific information from those sites and siting that, just that there's a general debate about his death. I agree that this could be placed elsewhere in the article rather than the Plot. Maybe a subsection on speculation. But there's a difference between sourcing specific facts from forums and stating that there is a general air of speculation. The fact there is speculation is undeniable. I don't personally care one way or the other whether Dent is dead or not. That's not the issue that I'm debating (this is directed to the forum at large). I'm just trying to find a way to acknowledge that the film seems to portray him as dead to the public in the film. Irrespective of what we all believe or don't believe. And that the wiggle room left by Nolan has spawned a lot of speculation over his fate. That's not me speculating. That's not in violation of [[WP:OR}}. That's fact. The speculation exists.--FilmFan69 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to verify information with reliable sources. There has been countless discussions, particularly within fan bases, about the merits of a franchise-based film. For example, the film Dragonball has apparently upset fans because it does not look good. However, we do not report every discussion that has ever taken place. If a major publication reports that there is speculation about Two-Face's fate, we can discuss if that is worth including. However, among major publications' reviews and coverage of the film, there is no Big Question Mark about the character's fate. The "general air of speculation" is actually very limited, and it only feels widescale because we are all very active in either editing this article or debating with fellow Batfans. It really is original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas." Like I said, the speculation needs to be published; until then, it cannot be noted in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Erik, with all due respect (and I mean that - you're an awesome editor) I would like to quote from WP:OR:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

I described the sources as evidence that there is speculation. I did not synthesize any material, only described. The simple fact that there are arguments in several places is evidence that there is speculation. --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Can we stop for a moment - I messed up the discussion somehow. Give me a moment to restore Erik's comments and the jacked up sections. Fixed. Many many apologies.--FilmFan69 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that for the first point, we adequately addressed what was depicted in the film, about Two-Face lying motionless. If we cite this discussion so far as the reason for speculation, it would be interpretative of the information found in the primary source. If we cite the forums and blogs, they would not be reliable enough to cite. At it stands, there's no useful secondary source that could cover Two-Face's fate. Maybe some will surface, maybe none at all. Right now, though, the speculation is more limited than it seems. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that there are two positions - 1) that Dent is still alive, and that despite no information within the film explicitly supporting this, his death is covered up, on the presumption (fan hope?) that maybe possibly the character will be used in another film, and 2) that Dent is dead, based on what is explicitly shown within the film. One of these is supported by the text and context of the film, and the other is a leap of faith. If the filmmakers do decide to "revive" the character, then we can by all means change it - this is wiki. But based on the current information at hand, we are for some reason appeasing those who speculate he's alive on the basis that, despite having no positive evidence, perhaps we've all been deceived. Maybe. But for the moment, we've been led to believe that Dent is dead, and second-guessing the film or trying to anticipate a retcon is not for an encyclopedia article.

To give a comparison, had Wikipedia been around in 1977, our article on Star Wars would state that Darth Vader murdered Anakin Skywalker. That this isn't what eventually revealed to have happened is not important - it is what the most reliable source available at that time explicitly supported.

Briefly: dead until the next film shows otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lots of fans don't think he's dead, proving that there's enough ambiguity that the film needs to express it. At one point yesterday, that was done, and had agreement. I maintain that's the only way to write it until we see definitive real world evidence from reliable sources otherwise. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that what the fans think has any place in this discussion, period. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? then what are you? A paid shill? No, you're a fan. Who edits here. But a fan. And NUMEROUS people I've seen who saw the4 film were left thinking he did not die. I dont' think he died. So unless you are explicitly qualified to tell us something we can't see for ourselves in the film, something you know from a reliable source that you can share, then what the masses read is just asrelevant as anytrhign else, all the editors here are (at least theoretically) jsut folks who saw the movie and edit here. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What everyone here is forgetting is that it is speculation EITHER way: alive or dead. We aren't given enough to conclude EITHER. Both require an inference to be drawn. The article should NOT say that Dent is dead. The article should NOT say that Dent is alive. The article SHOULD say that he fell and that the police held a memorial service for him. That is all. Inferring that he must be dead because they held a memorial service for him is fallacious. As we saw in THE SAME MOVIE, that is not always true. All we know is that he fell and there was a memorial service held for him. That's it. Everything else is pure speculation and has NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA. WP:OR. Rooot (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's really not speculation. In the film, they portray him to the public (and I mean the public in Gotham, not the public in the real world) as being dead. So I feel it is ok to say that he is presumed dead. Then I feel it is ok, in another section per Erik's comment, to state that there is debate about whether they have faked Dent's death. Of course we'll need to wait for CNN or some such site to discuss the debate as the evidence I presented earlier was summarily struck down even though it did not violate WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL. What would you need Root, to see that he decomposed a bit so you have proof that he's dead? --FilmFan69 (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3

I've just watched the film for a third time now in three days, and immediately after the fall (and well before any discussion of changing the story), Gordon himself says that "with Harvey's death, ends any hope for Gotham". Immediately followed by Batman repeating the line "die a hero or live to be a villain". I don't really see what more needs to be said - did we see Lau die? Sure, he was at the top of the pile of money which was burned seconds later, but did we see it? Did we see the Joker get captured? Sure, the SWAT team had him in their custody, but he escaped jail earlier in the movie... These questions are perhaps interesting for a post-screening discussion, but they have no serious place in a plot summary - as does the idea that somehow Dent's survival was covered up. Why? Because there is nothing in the film pointing that way. If the third movie contradicts this, then we should deal with the problems when the third movie evidences it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordon doesn not say that... I just left the theatre 25 minutes ago and everything is fresh in my mind. Gordon does NOT say "With Harveys Death" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that in the SAME MOVIE, we are told that Gordon died and, in fact, we go through much more of the "drama" that you are talking about and it turns out that he, in fact, never died, I would say that your circumstantial evidence pointing towards Dent's death is just that: circumstantial evidence requiring an inference to be drawn. The one, single, point remains through all of this debate: you don't know for certain one way or the other. For every piece of "evidence" that you provide to demonstrate that he died, someone else could provide similar evidence that he may not have died. The fact of the matter is that there is no way for you or anyone else to be able to draw either conclusion without violating WP:OR. Rooot (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Had the movie been split into two, a la Kill Bill, and the split occurred prior to Gordon's revelation, we would be saying in the plot summary that Gordon died - at least until the second half was released. Which is the proper thing to do until evidence exists otherwise. If you have proof that Dent survived and that two characters discussing his death are both lying, then state it. If you have a "strong feeling" that they might be lying, that is speculation. I have produced direct evidence in the form of dialogue from the film which clearly demonstrates that Gordon and Batman consider the character dead - and with no reason to be lying to each other, unless you think that they like to privately speak in metaphor. Do you have positive evidence that Dent is alive? Since you claim that someone can provide it, I would like to see it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider this: if Dent was not dead, would Two-Face, by any stretch of the imagination, just go along with Gordon and Batman's plan? Harvey is clearly dead at the end of the movie. He falls from an enormous height (so does Batman, but he had body armor), he isn't breathing, Batman touches his face and he doesn't respond, and Gordon and Batman's dialogue made it clear that he was dead. There is overwhelming positive evidence to suggest that Dent is dead, and no positive evidence to suggest that he is alive. Just because you don't see his SKELETON (a la Eddie Brock) doesn't mean his fate is ambiguous. Dent was meant to die a hero while Batman became the villain. 72.202.143.136 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that big of a fall though, and haven't you heard the term "unconscious"? What I think Batman and Gordon are saying is that Harvey Dent and his morals are dead, while he lives on as Two-Face. The point is we have no idea whether he died or lived.12.37.71.179 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What you think is irrelevant. What did the film portray? They say he's dead. period. end of story. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I counted during the tilt down when Batman falls - it's either 5 or 6 floors. Not insignificant. (Also consider that you can die from a couple of feet if you land the wrong way.) As for the metaphor, they continue to call him Harvey after the accident and through the final showdown - the only mention of Two-Face is in the hospital room. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rooot. I ask again what kind of evidence would you need? You've interpreted an outcome based on an earlier deception. It just doesn't mean anything that they deceived the public. I have decided that everyone who thinks he's alive, irrespective of any planned or unplanned return in a sequel, is deluded. I was, for a while, ok with the compromise statement that didn't specify death. But I've changed my stance, he's dead. He just is. You're deluded if you think otherwise. It can be changed later but any other interpretation is just plain wrong. Give up. Please. This discussion belongs on a fanboy site, not wiki. The dialog is clear, the implication is clear. If they surprise us in a sequel, great. But til then he's dead.--FilmFan69 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

People can make a conspiracy out of anything. Thus, where would we be if everything was "neutral"? The fact that it's suggested that he dies should pretty much end this debate unless one of the cast/crew members of The Dark Knight says otherwise. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To the person who says that taking into account "breathing, falling, etc" don't matter, and only what the film tells you to, I say this "The same film told us that Gordon was dead!". You can't treat anything as absolute, and while watching it you are supposed to think he's dead, but thinking it doesn't definitively prove anything. The "death" of Harvey Two-Face could be a similar ploy extending over two films. Gordon proves a loop in your logic. And to the person who claims that Gordon and Batman would have no reason to lie to each other, take into account they might be referring to the fact that Harvey Dent is "dead", not the new Two-Face persona. I also found this (which may or may not be posted already, so don't flip out if it is!) http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/eckhart%20agrees%20to%20third%20batman%20film_1075154 Pretty interesting, huh? --71.234.50.57 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, allow me to squash this arguement once and for all with this snippet and a link to the source: According to a trusted source for CinemaBlend.com, "Word is the next sequel will have Two Face [played by Aaron Eckhart] as the main villain." http://movies.ign.com/articles/817/817930p1.html

There you go, Two Face is NOT dead so this debate is OVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.0 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, allow me to squash this arguement once and for all with this snippet and a link to the source: According to a trusted source for CinemaBlend.com, "Word is the next sequel will have Two Face [played by Aaron Eckhart] as the main villain." http://movies.ign.com/articles/817/817930p1.html

There you go, Two Face is NOT dead so this debate is OVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.0 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll

We need a poll. I know they're discouraged but I have no idea where we all stand in terms of consensus. We're taking this democratic approach yet that is in the end irrelevant. We can't determine facts by democracy. But I do want to know where we're at. Thoughts? --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As I see it, there is no reason within the film itself to believe that he is alive. He does not "move", he is not looked to after the fall, and a memorial service is held in his name. There is no final shot showing him roaming the streets or locked up in Arkham Asylum. It has been pure conjecture to believe that he is at all alive. I've been fine with the wording in the Plot section due to the rampant speculation from the fan base, but at some point, it needs to identify him as dead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Erik. Then I move to end the speculation that was tolerated previously (and which had confused my own thinking in the matter to some extent). We just say he's dead. The film is clear on this despite the dubious claims of "Breathing", "The Gordon Deception", "The Height of the Fall", "Sequels", "Short Duration of the Villain", ad naseum. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And I oppose that. Simple say he's motionless. He could be stunned, unconscious, or dead. But nothing in the film, nor the press, provides conclusive explicit proof that he's dead. Again, I point to Nolan's comments about looking at early Batmans, and that in early the Batman story, two-face was cured. Further, I point to the well established trend in comics to never really kill villians. While everyone's throwing out random reasons he's dead cause of how they interpret the scenes we all saw, including attempts to suggest the number of floors fallen proves death, I can throw out two other equally distant counter arguments. Find a citation that he's dead, or leave it ambiguous. ThuranX (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, as has been pointed out earlier. The characters state that he's dead. Within the context of the film's plot. He is dead. An analysis section would be needed to interpret what Nolan intends. But this is not plot. It just isn't. He's dead. Two characters saying "He's Dead" makes it not open to interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFan69 (talk • contribs) 14:59, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

Who says "he's dead"? Get real. making up lines now? pssh. ThuranX (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, please be more civil. The film portrays him as dead in the end with the wake and Gordon's speech, so what is the in-universe reason to believe the opposite? We can't look to comics because Nolan has his own interpretation. Shall we imply Ra's al Ghul is still alive? :) Can we not add wording to the Plot section about the wake to reflect that it is publicly known that Dent is dead? Surely we can figure out wording that will explain the events and yet let the reader determine if there is something behind them or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They never call it a wake. They never say he's dead. They talk about how great Harvey is, not was, and how much he's done for Gotham. Until Nolan states 'He's dead', there's no proof they didn't put Dent into a safe facility to continue his healing. There's no proof of Dent's fate either way, and given the faked death of Gordon, which used the same sorts of tactics, tehre's zero reason to assume he's dead. And dont' we have an Eckhart quote about reprising the role? ThuranX (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I quote, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly 'Harvey dent is dead'. ThuranX (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated above that practically the first words out of Gordon's mouth after the fall are "with Harvey's death". This is before any discussion of changing stories. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good enough to mention that he fell and that a memorial service is held? That way it isn't stipulated one way or another, and the article will not draw conclusions beyond what viewers of the movie would experience. Pirchlogan (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We had that, and an agreement to move forward to GA and FA. Now we're bogged down in this mess. We had a lot of agreement, then a ouple peopel showed ups aying those willing to compromise are stupid for not agreeing with them, and now we're goin in circles. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, since that is all the film provides that would make sense, no? Nope, here we have a bunch of people who want to play detective and draw inferences without evidence that Dent must be dead. I don't know if he is dead or alive. Nobody does. That is how the film makers intentionally left it: ambiguous. Rooot (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have it saying that he lies there motionless, so until Nolan or anyone else from the movie says otherwise, let's just it keep it like that. Again, we have no proof that he's dead or alive.12.37.71.155 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't understand the incessant recycling of the same, tired, unfounded arguments supporting Dent's death. There is nothing in the film that evidences this. We see him fall, we see a memorial service. Yes, those combined may lead to the inference that he died, but they do not lead to the conclusion that he must be dead. These are two very distinct things. It is entirely possible that someone can fall, survive, and have a memorial service held in their honor. Any attempt to figure out what actually happened is pure speculation. I'm not going to run through lists of what might have happened and how Gordon and Batman might have faked this whole thing. That would be speculation. I'm also not going to support a conclusory statement in the article that Dent died. It is not supported by the evidence. The inference that he died is supported, but not the ultimate conclusion. I would support wording in the article such as this: "Dent fell from a building with Batman. Batman survived the fall. A memorial service was held for Dent."
• All the arguments stating "well Batman was wearing armor, that's why he survived..." are complete crap. How in the hell do you know that is why he survived? Again, you don't. More speculation. All we are left with is the fact that Batman survived and Dent laid there motionless and had a memorial service held for him. This leads to the acceptable inference that he died, but not the conclusion. There is simply too much ambiguity throughout this specific film, this genre of film making, and film making in general to allow such a conclusion to be drawn. Rooot (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LEAVE IT AS IS, THE FILM DOES NOT SAY EITHER WAY, DEAD/ ALIVE, SO STOP ARGUING YOUR OPINIONS ARE ALL IRRELEVANT UNTIL FURTHER PROOF GIVEN BY NOLAN OR CAST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

......ok there is a source that tells he is dead or alive below....why should I even post it if no one wants to look at it. Seriously Come on now. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, allow me to squash this arguement once and for all with this snippet and a link to the source: According to a trusted source for CinemaBlend.com, "Word is the next sequel will have Two Face [played by Aaron Eckhart] as the main villain." http://movies.ign.com/articles/817/817930p1.html

There you go, Two Face is NOT dead so this debate is OVER.

Emma Thomas & Two Faces Fate

Ok I found somewhat of a citeable source. Emma Thomas, producer of TDK, told IGN after early press screening that Dent's last scene was ambiguous enough to suggest that perhaps he was still alive.

• Source : The Villains of Batman 3 (3rd Paragraph down Last Sentence)

I Know the article itself is IGN's opinion but thats the only part of the article thats concidered as an citable fact. Hope it helps with the topic. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. If there is a copy of the interview online, though, so that we can see the primary source (that being the interview), it would be nice, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed useful, so I am alright with having the "lies motionless" detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Been looking for it, sounds like IGN only got a one on one talk with Emma Thomas directly after. I also am looking through the whole site for a direct article but cant find it sooo its "thats" the only source we have for now until one of the producers of the film says something else as of the DVD. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

great! now we can move on to getting this up to GA and FA. A great article to match a great movie. let's put that citation above, the Emma Thomas comment, into the article somewhere, validating and supporting the 'lies motionless' compromise we had a few days ago. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw the movie, and there are clues supporting both your statements, assisted by the statement of Mrs. Thomas here. Dent could very well be alive, as he couldn't really be a symbol of hope to Gotham dead. People are probably thinking Dent is ot only alive, he's a goody-two shoes.

But...here's another point. I mean, frankly...I don't think Dent contributed much to Gotham other than arguing with Gordon constantly and trying to take Rachel for himself. That trial was probably his only creditability. Other than that, he just stood there and looked pretty. And why would anyone call him a hero after he lied about being the man they could sacrifice to save their lives?

Besides, Harvey never saved anyone. Sure, he never was the cause for the Joker's ill-fated victims, but following that, he wasn't the guy who pulled them out of the way of chaos? So answer me this...why should Gotham idolize some pyschotic pretty boy who did nothing for anybody, and persecute a vigilante who serves justice, never kills, and never stops trying to help others? That's a question I hope will be answered in due time. 12.217.25.15 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, allow me to squash this arguement once and for all with this snippet and a link to the source: According to a trusted source for CinemaBlend.com, "Word is the next sequel will have Two Face [played by Aaron Eckhart] as the main villain." http://movies.ign.com/articles/817/817930p1.html

There you go, Two Face is NOT dead so this debate is OVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.0 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I do believe Two-Face is alive, I should probably point out that that article is from September 2007, and even mentions Ledger coming back. 12.37.71.167 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same thing; as such, while the intent was real at the time, the drastic change of circumstances renders such predictions questionable at best. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the the point of the "Plot" section to provide details of the plot as presented in this movie? Harvey Dent is very clearly presented as dead at the end of this movie: he is knocked backwards off a ledge, falls a good distance, doesn't move for the rest of the movie, Batman says, "I killed Dent," and then there's a memorial service for him. This is all very good evidence that Dent is, in fact dead. There is no evidence that Dent might still be alive; the only reason to believe he might still be alive is because he wasn't murdered in a brutal enough way that no human being could possibly survive. That said, if there was some conspiracy between Batman and Gordon to hide Dent and state that he is dead while he is actually alive, this does not belong in the Plot section for The Dark Knight anyway because it would be a plot point for another film (that is, the next Batman film, that is, a currently unexistent film--in other words, at the present time it's all Original Research). Leave the speculation to fan sites, use the Plot section here to actually describe what happens in the plot of this movie. Looking at this movie's plot, Dent is presented as dead.Scm621 (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. He is presented as being dead. I have no problem with using that wording. The problem I have is if we use definitive wording such as "Dent died" or "Dent is dead." As long as we keep it within how it was presented to us, I have no problem with it. The problem arises when we jump to the conclusion that he is either dead or alive. We have no evidence of either. Rooot (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone aware that we basically settled this a couple days after it was released, and agreed to just us the "lies motionless on the ground" description as it doesn't definitively say he is dead, nor does it insinuate that he is alive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic we could say that the Kennedy assassination was solved a day or two after it happened. Apparently, interviws are shedding new light on the situation. --07:55, 28 July 2008

Two-face is dead untill proven otherwise in a futre film his fate is in the hands of the producer of the next film what ever we delieve is only speculation however our beliefs of his fate is only pure speculation similer to the venom thing going around until his fate is revieled it is only pure speculation.Ghostwriter

(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmFan69 (talk • contribs)

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)

I agree with Girolamo, some immediate mention can probably serve as a good context. The material in Dark Knight is pretty extensive and worth debate (which I'm sure there will be amongst academics.) When that time comes, that sounds like adequate coverage of it at that point would probably include the stuff Girolamo is suggesting in this article, and a more academic discussion in a seperate article (sort of like what was done with the Matrix) -- User:joel.a.davis 67.61.188.55 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Girolamo. Immediately upon coming to the discussion I did a ctrl+F for "game theory" and if I didn't find it I was going to add it myself. The Joker repeatedly exemplifies Game Theory along with Ethics (his particular type of ethics I would call strongly anti-relativism, as he's very much against the "ethics of convenience" that he describes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.189.246.13 (talk) 14:40, 25 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)

IMDb 250 is not a competition for comparing movies, it's basically a consensus displaying the list of movies that many established users who are actively voting on IMDb (have made at least 1000 votes?), unaffiliated with one another, each rated highly on. Also there were a few things wrong with the now deleted "fan reception" section. This is the second since The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) to unseat The Godfather. Also, Star Wars and The Shawshank Redemption have also had the top spot. That makes only 5 movies that have held the #1 rank. [3] chantessy 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference. As the style guidelines indicate, they are suspect to vote stacking and demographic skew. If you look at the user rating closely, it is disproportionately voted on by men of the age range 18-29. This is not at all accurately representative of the film's reception among audiences. If there is a bona fide poll like CinemaScore for this film (CS found out audiences gave Hellboy II a "B" and Hancock a "B+"), that would be appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the CinemaScore for The Dark Knight ("solid A") and have incorporated it into the article per WP:MOSFILM#Theatrical: "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why." This seems to be a fairer representation of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So if IMDB is so unreliable, why is there a link to it at the top of the page, and why does almost every other film have it's IMDB ranking mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL#Links to be considered, IMDb qualifies as one of the "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It has information directly from the film like the cast and the crew (only, if mostly, accurate post-release) and WGA credits. In addition, feel free to link to the articles that mention a film's IMDb ranking. We'd be happy to remove it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a poll, so why can't we state that it is #1 on the poll? If we can't we should go to every other films article and delete the portion that says it's IMDB rating and placement in the Top 250/Bottom 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NO article should have those, since the IMDb polls can be too easily manipulated. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not just easily manipulated, but they lack representation of the population of people that saw the film. The poll is restricted to those people that are on IMDb, AND did not necessarily see the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So why is it that all of a sudden when The Dark Knight makes #1 everyone starts criticizing IMDB, whenever it was any other movie like The Godfather nothing was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.0.134 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's more that there are thousands of film articles on Wikipedia and we cannot watch them all. That being said, many editors are not aware that we have policies and guidelines that dictate certain contents in articles. There are too many problems with IMDb's polls, let alone IMDb itself, for use to consider their information reliable. If you see IMDb polls on any other article, please be bold and remove it citing WP:MOSFILMS#Critical reception as your reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then how is Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic reliable if it's the staff who have no proven expertise judging other reviews, and may not know what the reviewer means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 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[4], 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)

It's not a necessary image when considering everything else (production, marketing, etc.) there's iamges for already. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I will put forth this argument, that the article needs a rewrite, and when the content is shuffled to have a more effective and retrospective flow, we could revisit the implementation of images like this one. I've accumulated some headlines at User:Erik/The Dark Knight (film)#Harvey Dent, so maybe this could be discussed after seeing about replacing the Joker image and adding the "triumvirate" image, as discussed a few threads above. Also, regarding the spoiler potential of this, I've left a message at WT:SPOILER to get further input. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making it a time-issue thing. If information is acceptable a year from now, then it should be acceptable now, assuming that the basic principles of V, RS, etc. are met. That is implicit spoiler sensitivity, which WP:SPOILER clearly discourages. There's nothing that makes visual information inherently more privileged or protected than textual info. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that, since that was my initial argument. I suppose I'm trying to seek follow-up arguments that will parallel its exclusion for a brief time. Looking again, I would agree that there is probably not enough critical commentary to support the non-free image, seeing that what exists in the article now is more about how people would respond to the look. If we can expand that passage to include any useful details from my user subpage, then we can include the image. I'm obviously not going to be in a hurry to do that, but the information is there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be in it! since the movie was released it was known that dent was going to be in it. anybody with a shred of common since knows that dent is two face! it wouldnt spoil it for anybody because it is shown in the bar clip, the previews contain the gas on his face. plus the viral campaigns! it SHOULD STAY!Quinlanfan2 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you support its inclusion, you're going to need to support your argument on the basis of our site guidelines and policies. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've included a quote from Nolan talking about how the appearance was selected. What we really need is some coverage about the makeup and visual effects used to design the appearance. It may be worth keeping an eye on VFXWorld -- they usually have featured articles about blockbusters and should have one about The Dark Knight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cinefex also has it slated for the next issue, but since it's a quarterly, I think that's in October. (Maybe hits stands in September.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image should not be in this article. The Joker's image is fine, though, since it's splattered everywhere in posters and trailers, But NOT Two-Face's. Gary King (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because image choices should be dictated by what's already been released by the film's marketing department? Again, I have no issue with including or not including the image, but excluding it solely on spoiler grounds is specious and contrary to our guidelines and policies. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not asking to remove the image because it wasn't shown while marketing for the movie, they're asking to remove it because during the movie it is OBVIOUSLY supposed to be a surprise and scrolling through the article trying not to see any plot detail will prove futile, as an image is harder to miss than text. 72.208.80.23 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then see the movie before you read the article. Problem solved! Ta da! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

American Film

On Wikipedia, what is a film's country of origin based on exactly? The nationality of the majority of people working on the film, or the publisher, or what? I'm not saying it isn't an American film or anything, I'd just like to know. --Bloodloss (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The country of origin is based on the location of the production company, not the publisher. Jrtman (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the production company in this case? Warner Bros.? Why is the nationality of the directors/screenwriters/what have you not taken into account? Thanks. Bloodloss (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the production company is Warner Bros. Pictures. There is no reason to depend on the nationality of the filmmakers to determine the nationality of the film. As you probably notice, the director is British, but it is clearly an American production. In some cases, there is international collaboration. I believe that the LOTR films' countries of origin are the US and New Zealand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Is this a universal thing, or just something Wikipedia does (judging the nationality of a film on the production company)? Surely the nationality of the main people working on the film matters? Though granted, if it was based on this it would be fairly difficult to know what to call it, with a bunch of actors and whatnot from different countries. Bloodloss 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're making it more debatable than it needs to be. A production company in one country can make the film in another country for purposes of the story or cheaper production. For example, Valkyrie is an American film about a German story. On the flip side, German director Oliver Hirschbiegel was hired for the American production The Invasion and Russian/Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov was hired for the American production Wanted. For the most part, though, I would expect the nationality of the production company to usually match the nationality of the filmmakers. It's just that when they differ, the company's nationality takes precedent as seen in the examples I mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Question

The Plot Summary says that the Joker switches Harvey and Rachel "unbeknowest" to Batman and Gordon. But in the movie they say (later) that they intentially chose to save Harvey (by sending Batman to save him) since he is "the best of us" - the triumvirate of Gordon, Batman and Dent. I don't recall anywhere in the film it being said or implied that the Joker lied about who was where. Can anyone back up this plot detail? --150.101.207.19 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker wanted Batman to save Dent but he knew he would rather save Rachel, which is why he switched the two. Then they realize he wanted to do that because Dent is the "best of them". Gary King (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GA ready?

Are we sure about this? What is with nominating articles for GA status when they are still in theaters, especially only a week after release? I think, at the moment, this article has an issue with stability - as do most articles on newly released films. I would at least like to see a GAN wait until about the fourth or fifth week of release. Most of the hype is generally died down by then; superfans that want to bloat the plot section or add personal interpretations have moved on for the most part; we aren't disputing so many different aspects of the article (photo, plot section, review section, etc).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the article is ready for GAN. The only section that has been changing rapidly is Plot; beyond that, there haven't been sections that have major changes lately. I think that this article already surpasses GA; it would be a great candidate for FA in six months or so, especially after a DVD release. Gary King (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that given the instability at Plot, we are NOT ready. Wait a month for the plot to settle, and then nominate it. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It might worth waiting a little bit longer for more time to sift through the press details (especially with regards to behind-the-scenes info), as well as box-office data and new records. Maybe a few more weeks? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article has a lot of good content, but we should revisit the prose to make it more retrospective. Not to mention that there's definitely going to be more sources to implement. See my proposal at article review. I agree with ThuranX, too, that there is instability with the Plot section at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The critical reception section still needs to be overhauled. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alfred = Father Figure

Just want to get consensus here.

References: Variety New York Observer Movie Net News

Alfred is indeed a father-figure to Bruce Wayne. Not just a butler as User:WesleyDodds has suggested. If there's consensus to remove I will, but it seems that there's ample evidence to include this description. --FilmFan69 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Magnificator (talk · contribs) is adding the originally researched "References to other films" section to the article. I've removed it twice and I've warned him twice. I've reverted enough with this article, so please remove future additions and add further warnings {{uw-nor3}} or {{uw-nor4}}. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker's abilities

im new here to wikipedia so what i am about to say, im not sure if it should be listed on the Dark Knight's page but, shouldn't somewhere we mention that the Joker managed to beat down Batman during there two battles. in there first battle he dodged batman and kicked him like three times (while getting hit himself) but he still took Batman on. and there last confrontation, after Batamn got rid of the dogs, the Joker beat Batman so hard with his fists and a steel pipe and held him down. so the Joker can fight and took on Batman. so i was just wondering should we mention that here or on the Joker's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk • contribs) 14:50, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that these would be considered abilities. He's able to fight, but I don't know if that's truly worth noting here or on the Joker's Wikipedia article. It's a little plot detail that does not really say much about the character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there an expectation that he couldn't fight? What exactly is notable about this information in the context of an encyclopedia article on the film? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well i thought it might have been worth mentioning because most adaptations of the Joker cannot fight. and Heath ledger's Joker could hold his own even against Batman. but i dont know much bout wikipedia so that is why i am just 'speculating' we should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many versions can and do hold their own against him, others fight an d lose, others can't fight. It's not notable, because it chagnes as the stories need. Also, please use ~~~ to sign your posts. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

but this Joker could fight like no other Joker we have seen. this Joker managed to beat Batman at the end and during their first fight it was bout even. i just think we should but i guess not. and i dont have an account here so i cant sign. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really irrelevant. The Joker may have, in many versions, so experience fighting, but whether he wins or loses any given bout is a matter of plot, not of some inherent skill, remember, he's a fictional character, and bent to the writer's wishes. If you think it's notable, you'll need to find an article that talks about his fighting skills relative to the Batman's and the importance ofthe skills to the plot. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

im just saying i think we should mention that he could fight in the movie because most adaptations are portrayed as not being able to fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about how the Dark Knight version of The Joker differs from other versions isn't really appropriate for this article; perhaps Joker's appearances in other media instead? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's really that relevant there, for the reasons stated above. IF the IP user can find a good citation for the writers and director needing his skills to include real fighting abilities, then it might be accpetable on the other media page, but without that, no. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't improve the article in any way, and no original research... rootology (T) 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Supporting characters

I would like to trim and compress the supporting characters in the "Cast and characters" section. Any ideas about doing so, particularly at the "Sal" Maroni bullet and down? I am thinking about deleting the one paragraph at the end of the section with the exception of keeping mention of Senator Leahy. We could categorize the roles into "good guys" and "bad guys", though I'm open to other ways to organize it. Suggestions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the trimming and compressing. Please review the change, and if there are any questions or suggestions, feel free to weigh in here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

LUCUS FOX's resignation...

When the Batman asked Fox to track the Joker using the sonar, Fox says "I will only help up to this point. After this, I will write my name for resignation."

At the end of the movie, while the Batman runs away and Gordon breaks the Bat-signal, Lucius Fox shutdowns the Applied Science Department's all computers and resigns.

I think we must include this part in the plot summary.

This part will become even more important if there's any sequel movie. -- Chul.Kwon/discuss/contributions 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it wasn't that important to the overall plot. Second, what Fox said was that he would no longer help Bruce if Bruce continued to use the sonar machine, because he felt it was an invasion of privacy. Fortunately, Bruce probably knew this and set up the system to self-destruct when Fox plugged in his name (hence the part where Bruce literally tells Fox to put in his name when it is all done, and once he did that then the program destroyed itself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole; the plot summary covers it succinctly enough. There are a lot of elements in the film that could make a description of it more "complete", but we're aiming for the broad perspective of the story. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

concur with both editors above; it's pretty clear from Lucius' smirk when he inputs his name and the machines spark and explode that it was rigged to fry out when the job was done. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Confirmed

Gary Oldman has confirmed that a game based on TDK is in works. So it should be mentioned in the article.

SOURCE: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/3466.html

Heres an article from IGN: http://comics.ign.com/articles/597/597033p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Batman film-to-game adaptation in the second link. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The IGN artical is about the Batman Begins game. It even mentions it moron. Look and read the artical before you post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Catwoman

Did anyone else feel Fox's comment about Batman's armor being able to handle dogs but not CATS was an allusion to a future villain?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.120 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It may have been, but it's pretty far out there. If we can get multiple sources about people interpreting it as an allusion, we could mention it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even worth mentioning, it was a quick throwaway word of dialogue. rootology (T) 06:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rootology. It's a minor detail, and there's no reason to believe that it means something more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, Nolan has ruled out Catwoman or Penguin for the next movie. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give more support for Catwoman being ruled out? All signs for me point to Catwoman and Riddler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.120 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Gateman1997's claim, but see Batman (film series)#Future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when do the bad guys use killer cats instead of killer dogs? :) Gary King (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Goyer's comments. Catwoman and Penguin have been ruled out. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's really substantial info since Goyer also said that they're ruled out because Nolan wanted to use villains that weren't in movies before but uh... The Joker, Two-Face, and the Riddler have all been featured. 68.58.196.93 (talk)rainbro —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We Need more Film Reviews

Jesus, this movie is 94% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and we give half the section to some nut job with vendettas against both realism and action movies. 72.161.253.11 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to basing the weight of the reviews relative to this. The negative reviews, being the distinct minority, shouldn't be any more than 25% of the raw weight at most, for the sake of common sense. rootology (T) 06:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the weight needs to be somewhat proportional to the actual response. That being said, it is useful for articles for all films (no matter how celebrated or hated) to discuss contrary opinions when they are held by noted and reliable sources. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, but always with care given to not give them any undue weight. As the truly bad reviews appear to be a far minority, I'd say put them in the middle of the reception section, and keep the volume of negative/contrary views as small as they appear to be. The "final word" in that section also should not be a negative review, as casual readers may take that away as a conclusion, which would be false. rootology (T) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no true or false - they're all opinions. Stating the general critical consensus and providing the RT and MC stats should be enough to ground the section in those regards. While I agree that one sentence of supportive comments and five paragraphs of negative comments would be disproportionate, I don't believe that the placement of either is relevant or sends a message/"final word". We should neither be advocating for nor inveighing against the film, no matter how heavily critical opinion is on either side. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I understand the concern about giving whole paragraphs to one reviewer (the reception section certainly needs cleaning), but I've always liked the philosophy of fair and balanced. In other words, paraphrase an even numbered amount of pos. and neg. reviews (if possible, might not be), and let the percentage of approval speak for itself. I don't think it matters where the reviews go. Another of my favorites is balancing the paragraphs themselves. If one reviewer says he loved the acting and cites reasons why, and another reviewer says he hated the acting and cites reasons why...then it would go to say that they would be best placed together as competing opinions, than have all the positive stuff in one area and all the negative stuff in another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; a much more succinct summary of my thoughts. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot section, Harvey dead, alive, or other

Two-Face shoots Batman in the stomach, but before he can determine the boy's fate, Batman tackles him over the side of the building, saving Gordon's son. As Dent lies motionless on the ground, Batman and Gordon realize the fallout and moral loss the city would suffer if Dent's acts of murder became known. Batman convinces Gordon to blame him for the murders to preserve Dent's image. As Gordon destroys the Bat-Signal, a manhunt is issued for Batman.

That is perfect. It only describes exactly what is seen on the screen, and dialogue between Oldman and Bale. Well done. :) rootology (T) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy

Resolved

 – Actor is mentioned in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont knos if my eyes were tricking me but did I see Cillian Murphy in this movie? I think he was one of the wannabe Bataman in the beginning of the movie. 67.180.91.234 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was him too at first, but it was definitely a look-alike. Eyes were different and whole face was a bit off. Oh, and to all those editors who think this conversation is a waste of time, it's not. The anon probably though Murphy should go in the article. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... it WAS Cillian Murphy.[5] He specifically came back for the cameo when they asked because he enjoyed the role so much. rootology (T) 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned directly in this article. Gary King (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned that he's already in the article? :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What? That was him? Hahaha, now I really look like a fool. Was that the guy who Batman tortured? Because that did not look like him... Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman didn't torture him. He tied Dr. Crane up and put him next to the fake Batmans. We don't see him again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for that. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm 90% sure we see CM as one of the passengers on the prisoner's ferry. 205.167.180.131 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall seeing him on the prisoner's ferry as well. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

in the "design" section

"The gauntlets have retractable razors which are able to be fired"

Can somesone change this so it doesn' sound like it's been written by a retard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.151.204.210 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording. Please be a little bit more polite about suggesting improvements. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks likes "somesone" "doesn'" like retards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ledger quote about influences

Under the cast section Ledger is quoted as saying "a very early starting point for Christian [Bale] and I [sic]" What is the [sic] referring to? Tony2Times (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sic refers to a misphrasing in the quote. It really should be "and me", instead of "and I". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what [sic] means which is why I asked, seeing as 'and I' is the grammatically correct way of saying things. 'And me' is the less formal version and has only (relatively) recently been acceptable. Tony2Times (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "me" was most appropriate because when you drop the other names and conjunctions, you're ending the sentence with "I". For example, "Would you like to go to dinner with Maggie and me?" We drop [Maggie and], and we have, "Would you like to go to dinner with me?" On the other hand, "Would you like to go to dinner with Maggie and I?", dropping [Maggie and], we have, "Would you like to go to dinner with I?" Which seems seriously awkward! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, that was how I was taught to distinguish between when to use "me" and when to use "I".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"I" is a subject. "Me" is an object. In that sentence whatever Ledger was refering to is the subject and he and Bale are the objects. However, the "sic" should be used with care. Gramarians aren't as concerned about the spoken word as they are about the written. Mykll42 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Batsuit

It says early on that the Batsuit was redesigned so that Bale could move his head. This was a talking point in making ofs for Begins, saying that Bale was glad to be the first Batman to be able to move his head without moving his shoulders as Keaton was prone to do. Thus it wasn't redesigned, the design was already there for the previous film. Tony2Times (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In Batman Begins, the cowl was designed to be more flexible than its predecessors, but not completely. I read an article somewhere (maybe American Cinematographer) in which Nolan stated that they did not want to make the costume change too radical for the reboot. So when The Dark Knight came around, they were more bold with the costume change. We could probably clarify this a little more in the article. When the activity surrounding the film dies down, we can revamp the "Design" section to be clearer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up. I guess it's best to wait a while until the article is edited less frequently before changing little tidbits like that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the source I had in mind was LA Times. It has information about the different elements of the Batsuit. It's definitely something to add to the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I read an article with script writer David S. Goyer who was discussing the film and mentioned that he and Christopher NOlan and begun speculating on who they who choose for a villain and what the theme for the third movie could be... naturally i don't have that link... anyone else read that? 70.252.211.130 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is from MTV Movies Blog. Goyer did not really reveal anything, so I'm not sure if there is anything to implement from that citation. You can read other details at Batman (film series)#Future, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yeah that doesn't really say too much, but I guess it is worth note of on the actual Batman film series article. 70.252.211.130 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Batpod in lead?

Might have already been discussed, but shouldn't the Batpod be mentioned in the lead since it's a redesign of the Batcycle? Like how the redesigned Batmobile is mentioned in the lead of Batman Begins. Cliff smith (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it can be added if you can make it succinct enough and fit in somewhere appropriate. However, it isn't the most crucial piece of information; the jump from the Batmobile that comic fans know and love made a significant change into the Tumbler, while Tumbler to Batpod isn't as big a jump. Gary King (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Last Batman film?

Is this the last of the Batman film? and is this where Batman is now a vigilante? Demon Hunter Rules(—) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I know the initial plan was to do a trilogy. But that could have changed with Ledger's untimely death. Christian Bale confirmed in an interview that he had signed on for a third, but again, that may have been before the death. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So there is a possibility of a sequel but it is not clarified there will be a sequel? Demon Hunter Rules(—) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We will not report either way on this article until we have citation. We have a few comments about the willingness of actors to return, and or their contractual obligations, and a few about the story and such. We don't have an up/down though. ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ship Scene

Can we add this to trivia (and please please have a trivia section!!)

• Joker puts the two ships in a situation reminiscent of the Prisoner's dilemma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakul02 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we do not have trivia sections because they are sections for miscellaneous facts that can't be placed elsewhere because the article may be underdeveloped. However, it is ripe for abuse with indiscriminate details like fan's interpretations and unencyclopedic goofs. In this case, calling the rigged-ships crisis a "prisoner's dilemma" is interpretative. I recommend sticking to IMDb's trivia page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really interpretative - see the article, particularly the general structure of the dilemma (which does not need to concern prisoners) and the real-world examples. The problem is that there isn't much in the way of RS and critical commentary to create a sufficient paragraph at the moment, AFAIK. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was more referring to WP:PSTS:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

"Prisoner's dilemma", I believe, is a piece of specialist knowledge, and since it's not directly mentioned in the film, it can't be perceived as such from the primary source. Independent sourcing would work, though. This somewhat ties in with the game theory discussion, so hopefully we can put together some reliable sources for this kind of perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget

The infobox shows budget as $180m. However BoxofficeMojo puts it at $185m. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=darkknight.htm

I think this should be changed. Crackjack (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you check the source next to the 180 number, you will see that it comes from the NY Times. Currently, the NY Times is more reliable than BoxOfficeMojo, as the NY Times has a longer history of fact checking and I know for a fact that BOM tends to post whatever budget they hear first and rarely goes back to fix things. They still list Superman Returns's budget incorrectly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will tell you what, just before the release of the movie even BOM showed the figure 180m. However just after the 1st weekend, it became 185m. I think they updated it based on additional budget incurred by the movie due to pronounced marketing.Crackjack (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what is included in the "production budget". Marketing is not "production". We also don't know why BOM changed it to 185, it's speculation to assume there was any reliable reason for the change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

AFP reports $180 million and LA Times reports $180 million. I'm sure it's in the ballpark, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

Uh, should it be noted that this is the highest rated film on IMDB's top 250? (I think that makes it the highest rated movie on the site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.175.10 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't include user ratings due to vote stacking and demographic skew; see MOS:FILM#Critical reception. The user rating is not a balanced representation of what all audiences members thought of the film. It's commonplace for blockbusters with fan bases to penetrate the Top 250... Transformers was in it once upon a time. We can instead point to bona fide polls (like CinemaScore finding that audiences gave the film a "solid A") and the box office numbers, which make it clear that the film is going over well with audiences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I am seeking consensus to set up auto-archiving for this article's talk page. We have quite a few discussions on this talk page, active ones mixed with inactive ones. In addition, since I think it is likely that we will pursue a revision of this article as the hype slows down, there may be even more discussions relevant to the details of the future revision. Do other editors have any issues with auto-archiving? I was thinking 7 days' time for a discussion (meaning 7 days after the last time-stamped comment within, not the initial comment). Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay Gary King (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Make it 10 or 14, to account for editors who take summer vacations, have a tough week of school, or a family interruption. Things will be slowing down here in the next few weeks. ThuranX (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the code; please review to ensure that it is implemented correctly. It is at 10 days with a max of 100K per archive. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article length

This article is way too long and somewhat inconsistent compared with the established method of writing film articles. Take a look at the reception part of the article - good and bad reviews are muddled together; the largely favourable points should be at the top and few serious bad points at the bottom. Please review this section! 89.100.18.51 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We exercise neutrality in not dividing positive remarks and negative remarks about the film. The section, as it stands, addresses the various opinions regarding a specific aspect of the film. The section also already makes clear that the general consensus of the critics have been positive. I don't see the benefit of making the section largely positive when the consensus is already reflected, and adding the "seriously bad points" at the end would end the section on a negative note. Is this the only issue you have with the article? This is one of the longer Wikipedia articles due to the franchise nature of the film; believe me, there is more content to be added. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is only 40kb of readable prose (not including the lead paragraphs, as I see no reason to include something that just reiterates and summarizes the whole article). Thus, the page is actually not too long, but really a good size. I'm sure that when we clean up the reception section, which will probably need some trimming, it will be smaller.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing (of the film)

Wondering if anyone's read anything about a director's cut length vs. release length? did Nolan get 'his' cut in? I haven't seen anything on the article, or in other articles about this. Has anyone else? ThuranX (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsarama:

One thing that won’t show up on the DVD release are deleted scenes, with the director saying he tries not to write or shoot scenes that don’t stand a good chance of getting into the film. As such, the script was structured in such a way that scenes could not be removed without damaging the entire structure. That also helped in the editing of the film, with the director only cutting 10 minutes from his original cut by trimming scenes here and there.

About.com

Warner Bros Pictures never attempted to intercede in the filmmaking process and never tried to get Nolan to lighten the tone or change the direction of The Dark Knight story. "I don't really fight with the studio. I never have because I think you lose. It's quite a powerful organization that's paying for the whole film. My experience and my way of working with them has been a very positive collaboration, really. I think the thing that I try to do as a filmmaker is try to be very communicative to the studio and to everyone else. I try to really explain to them what it is that I am doing so that any big disagreements about the nature of what the thing should be are had right on Day One of putting the script together, rather than when you're actually shooting the film or editing the film," said Nolan.

Also, from what I can tell from forums, Nolan has said that the theatrical release was his final product. Hope these help. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful, but not sure how much is worth including; maybe the first one more so than the second, or a 'believing cooperation is good (cite 2), Nolan shot only for what he could use in the release (cite 1). ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Holes in the plot

I don't mean to lengthen out the section too much, but the plot section as it read was full of too many holes. I probably added a few unnecessary details, but before killing it, please read over it instead and cut it down a little bit as you see fit, or, if you have a major issue with the way I wrote it, let me know instead of just undoing the whole thing. Thank you. cocoapropo (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us know on the talk page where the plot holes are. The plot you created is far too detailed, and the last one had been here for a while and had gained consensus through discussion on this talk page. Gary King (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the previous revision was under 700 words, and the expansion kicked it up to over 1,300 words. This is not acceptable per WP:FILMPLOT -- the section is not supposed to thoroughly detail every scene in the film but only cover the major events so the reader can have a better understanding of the film in general for comprehending the rest of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Film?

I remember reading here that in this film the joker would scar harvy dent which would then lead to the third film about two-face, so is this true... or was it never on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.73.85 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It may have been in an earlier, pre-release form of the article. Since Ledger's death, however, plans may well have changed, with recent sources suggesting there may not even be a third movie. (But I say, wait till they see the profits.) ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker's Scars

The Joker portrayed in the movie has several scars on his face, the most noticiable are the pair of scars that gives him his "Smile". Many have wondered what is the true history of this scars. Joker tells two different storys about how he got them and is about to tell a third one before batman is able to subdue him. People have been arguing witch one might be true.

I think both are ture, in the first story he says his father cutted out the edges of his mouth saying "Let's put a smile on that face!". The other one told to Rachel, says he chewed on a razor in order to say to his wife he didn't cared about her scars. Since he has multiple scars, that he gained the "Smile" scar because of his father violence. And the other scars, he gained upon chewing a razor because of his wife. I mainly concluded that following the logic of, his father saying "Let's put a smile on that face!" upon cutting his face had SOMETHING to do with the Chelsea-Smile scar he has. And since chewing a razor can't provoke such a injured shaped like a smile, but instead several others deep cuts from the interior of the cheeks to the outside, like the other scars he has on his face.

What do you think ? Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.81.39 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, please do not use the talk page for general chit-chat about the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole... the talk page of a Wikipedia article is meant to discuss how to improve the article. There are many other forums where you can talk freely about the movie with other fans. This just isn't the place for it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the movie the Joker gives two different accounts (almost three before being knocked off the ledge by Batman) of how he got the scars near his mouth. Is it known how he got these? And also, I didn't see anything about the scars in the article, but perhaps I missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.45.107.75 (talk • contribs)

Hi, there's nothing in the article because I don't believe many sources have mentioned it. I recall reading an analysis in one of the reviews we cite (sorry, I can't remember which one) that briefly discusses Joker's different accounts (praising the film's refusal to psychoanalyse the character), and when a themes/analysis section gets around to being written, it might be worth mentioning at that stage. Steve ^{T • C} 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon criticism complaint

The too-high proportion of negative criticism of the film to positive in the "Reception" section does not reflect the fact that 90+% of reviews have been positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.143.218 (talk • contribs)

explain further, please. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon, there should be an equal number of positive to negative reviews. To keep a neutral side, we are presenting an equal number of views from both sides, but, in order to also make it clear that the film did not receive mixed reviews the opening of the section clearly indicates that it has a 95 percent approval rating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CRITICAL RECEPTION has to include IMBD

In addition to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, surely you'd include the widely respected IMBD - where this film is rated number 1 of all time after a massive 156,218 reviews (SEE: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0468569) and has an average rating of 9.4 (SEE: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.56.178 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no we don't, and won't. IMDb can be influenced by a single user making numerous accounts, then votin with all of them. As such ,we don't include fan ratings. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be discussed. [6][7][8][9][10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Unfortunately, even reliable news organizations have yet to realize how unreliable IMDb actually is, even when it comes to their extremely unrepresentative polls. The poll is still completely unreliable in the fact that it does not require anyone to have actually seen the movie to vote on it (I know, because I voted and it didn't ask me a single question). Maybe if some high profile news organizations start talking about it, but even then it seems like we're saying that is someone provides an unscientific survey, but that survey is mentioned somewhere else then we should ignore the fact of its unreliability and report on it anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It might also be more interesting to wait on this, for recentism reasons, as even one of the sources in the Google News search shared the sentiment that we are "living in the moment" when he discussed that 250 ranking. I find it difficult to include such a thing when it could easily flip back in the next month or so. (Especially true given IMBd's 250 rankings notoriety for having ranks swap positions often).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Peregrine, your first link makes the case for us. It should absolutely not be included. ThuranX (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it shows that it should be included with references explaining how it got that score. I'm not saying it should just be included without explanation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thing it would be to report on the news medias interpretation of whether they think this is a legitimate poll, or if they agree with Adam K. Raymond that the poll is ridiculous. Though, I would like some more well known news organizations than TheStandard.com (which, btw, actually replicates the information from CNET.com if you read it and follow the link that TheStandard provides to CNET.com).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclude the IMDb user rating in its entirety. It is completely skewed demographically, focusing on young males. Blockbusters with fan bases have penetrated the Top 250 before -- 300, The Simpsons Movie, Transformers, etc. The Dark Knight is the result of a perfect storm, so it's penetrating better than ever before. It is quite clearly recentism, as Bignole says. The rating is not at all representative of the audiences' opinion; CinemaScore reports that audiences gave it a "solid A" as opposed to "A+", which is a fairer representation. The demographic was reported to be slightly male and slightly older as well. The user rating is ill-representative of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that all of a sudden when one film beats The Godfather on this one list, IMDB gets completely unregarded? And how is Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic reliable if it's unreliable staff judging a reviewers views on a film? For all they know, they completely missed the point of the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.59.144 (talk • contribs) 08:29, July 29, 2008 (UTC)

There's no "all of a sudden" about it. We've excluded IMDb user ratings for quite some time. If they exist on another film article, we haven't gotten to them yet. Feel free to point them out so they can be removed as well. RT and MC's staff members are different from IMDb's visitors, and the situation is not at all comparable. Like we've said before, the user rating is vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I think that the reason Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are regarded as such is simply because they've proved their worth over time. Are they perfect? No. But neither is any other ostensibly reliable source such as the Los Angeles Times or Washington Post. Everyone gets things wrong from time to time. None of this detracts, however, from RT's and MC's usefulness to us, especially considering the number of reviews the use to generate their statistics (even if RT miscategorises a couple, in a pool of 150 that will make little difference). The IMDb's polls, unfortunately, are not considered to be a fair reflection of public opinion due to their vulnerability to vote-stacking, the relatively narrow demographic of the typical IMDb user, and the site's reluctance to reveal their methods. Steve ^{T • C} 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tardive Dyskinesia

Would be interested to see something about tardive dyskinesia added, if a reliable source mentions Ledger was acting that out (it seemed he was). Шизомби (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the lip licking. Unless a reliable source says that Ledger, Nolan, and/or Goyer specifically looked at that condition, it's your OR and/or SYNTH to assume so. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I wrote "if a reliable source mentions." :-) Шизомби (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit to Ledger

Link: http://entertainment.oneindia.in/hollywood/top-stories/scoop/2008/dark-knight-nolan-heath-ledger-290708.html

Discuss.

YAYYOYAY (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the cast and crew have clearly praised Ledger a lot. I'm not sure if it warrants expansion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this quote lacks the context of the full text, in which Nolan praises others and says he can't point to exactly what was behind the film's success. Steve ^{T • C} 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)