Talk:The Dark Knight

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. [1][2][3][4][5] - 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)

"By lying, cheating, and voting hundreds of times, a small group of fans artificially inflated the IMDb score of the movie"? It's not notable that a lot of fat lonely bat-fans found something to do during the hours the theaters were closed, and doubly so when it's about a situation in which we wouldn't use the scores because we assume ALL IMDb scores are compromised. ThuranX (talk) 18:20, 30 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)

Film critics are skewed slightly male and slightly older. Does that mean we should exclude them? Ticket sales are skewed towards those with the money to go. Maybe we should exclude box office, too. The IMDB reviewers, and whatever demographic they may tend to be, rate this film higher than any other and it is worth mentioning. 128.206.57.18 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Film critics employ a 'one man, one vote' behavior. IMDb users do not. One person might have 50 email addresses, and vote 10/10 with all 50. If 10 people do that, you've got a skewing of the vote by 500 10/10 votes. As such, we don't allow IMDb. This has been repeatedly explained to you. IMDb user vote ratings are subject to tampering and vote-stacking. We know you've read all this, we kjnow you understand it, we do not know why you don't accept it. I see no point in continuing this discussion, as it consists of multiple registered editors explaining to an IP, (or possibly more, it's hard to tell if it's one person on a dynamic IP or many), why we don't use IMDb, citing policies and with long, clear explanations, and the other side saying 'but it's cool so we want it', over and over.ThuranX (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually according to the vote area of IMDB they use a weighted average that other means to root out and discount vote stuffing by people. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I will say what I just recently said in the Godfather talk page: Given that the poll is administered in a poorly-controlled and non-statistically valid manner, it's hard to lend any credence to the results, which cannot be said to objectively establish anything factual. This would exclude it from any sort of appeal to WP:RS. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The film is a phenomenon, and it is STILL Number 1 on the IMDB poll. I don't think any film has made this impact on the public, and I seen quite a few. Others which made an impact (not as big as The Dark Night), when they came out are Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, High Noon, My Fair Lady, Titanic, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, The Silence of the Lambs. This film is special and unque. Everyone is talking about it, and that has never happened before. That's why it has shot to number 1. Wallie (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, The Godfather mysteriously drops to #3 in the poll... no, the vote stacking and demographic skew is quite clear with user ratings like these. Let's not permit our feelings about the film (heck, I loved it) get in the way. We have much better venues of information -- the critics' reviews and the box office numbers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just mentioning the controversy surrounding it, instead of pointing it out as a big glory point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.181.213 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont meant to contradict wikipedia policy on this subject but im just pointing out that the dark knight has 216,883 votes under its belt, I hardly think that you can claim THAT many accounts are fake or that this is just because its a new release. Furthermore even 1000 fake accounts (your talking alot of spare email accounts) would only account for about 2% of the vote. I dont think that imdb ratings should be included on a regular basis but I feel that given the unique situation with how many votes this film has received (many in the top 10 imdb list dont have that many) It may be worth a mention.--Will Decay (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Given the completely unreliable, unscientific, non-representative sampling of IMDb's polling, I think it's clear undue weight to something that is suffering from recentism. We have no idea of the long term effect of such a poll (regardless of all of the "uns" and "nons" I just gave).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception section.

Sorry, I keep banging on about this but I seem to be getting no answers so I'm going to make the effort of starting a new discussion.

The Critical Reception section still does not read as well as it could for me. I made the mistake of sticking a fix into the 'To Do' list and this got reverted within minutes. So I'll make my point here. As it currently reads, the critical reception does not, in my view, give an accurate portrayal of the film's reception. I understand the point of 'not lavishing the film with praise', but then neither, surely, should the film be given an oddly balanced representation against the majority of positive reviews?

Here's the details: There are fifteen positive comments made about the film in the reception section. These are made by, with the number of mentions; Robet Ebert (1), Peter Travers (4), Todd Gilchrist (3), David Ansen (1), Joe Neumaier (1), Emanuel Levy (2) Christopher Orr (1), Dean Richards (1) and Lary Carroll (1). There are also three individual positive comments of Heath Ledger's performance, by Todd Gilchrist, Emanuel Levy and David Denby.

On the opposite side, there are six negative comments about the film. Four of these are made by David Denby, the other two by David Ansen and David Edelstein respectively. Unlike a lot of other film releases, the negative comments are not collected as an opposite representation of some critics opinions, to be accepted as the 'other side' of a film's reception, but instead are slipped inbetween the positive comments to, apparently, try and keep a sense of balance. Now I understand the reasoning behind it, but when the film currently holds a 94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 82 on Metacritic, added to the fact that the majority of the negative comments come from the same review (David Denby), I think the urge to balance reviews ignores the overwhelming popularity of the film amongst critics.

If someone can explain this to me a little better, I'd be very appreciative. I'm just curious how the creation of such a section goes forward. =)

--92.12.195.92 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, like you said, it's clear how the film has actually been received, based on the percentages. So why do we need to make sure the entire section is full of mostly praise? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. =) I think I need to clear up the point I'm making; I'm not pushing for the negative comments to be removed, or edited, or anything like that. I just feel they'd work better collected into a single paragraph or two. Currently each two or three positive points is countered by a negative, which is usually David Denby's opinion. It's like having six of your friends go see a film, five of them love it but one doesn't, and when they come back to tell you about it the sixth guy just sits there going 'It's rubbish' to every positive point made by the other five. Not really 'balanced', is it? --92.12.195.92 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "countering" of the negatives is to keep the balance. We really wouldn't be keeping a neutral point of view if we put in 10 positive responses and then had 3 negatives ones thrown in at the end. I do agree that we shouldn't be favoring Denby's review, or anyone's review for that matter (negative or positive). There are 14 negative reviews, there's probably more that we can pull from, and we could probably trim and paraphrase the reception section anyway. It's rather large for a film that is so new. It isn't like this film is 30 years old and people are revisiting it every decade to see how it holds up to time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not necssarily a case of having a certian number, but a case of covering all the angle of criticism (or rather the main ones) eg, comments on the length, comments on the multiple climaxes, comments on the characterisation of batman, etc.

Having several reviews which complain of hte multiple climaxes would be pointless, but have exra ones that complain about different things would be fine. Likewise with praise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.231.85 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree if you read the critical reception you will get the feeling that the film is a mediocre film , and was received by mixed critic reviews. As opposed to being one of the greater films in its genre . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.199.9 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually get the feeling that most critics really liked it, though a few had a problem here and there with some aspecdt or other, and one guy wrote a really long, involved review (Denby). I think it's fine as is; the countering aspect by aspect is more balancing than a tacked on negative ending. I see no reason to augment the positive or reduce the negatives to find some artificial mathematical balance. ThuranX (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if it belongs here but as of now the movie has made 205 million overseas. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080803/media_nm/boxoffice_dc

So I dont know if you guys want to correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.46.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so seems my point about rephrasing the reception is one I'll have to concede. I've no problems with that. I will ask again, though, that the negative balance points be found from other reviewers as well as David Denby's, so his review isn't favoured so heavily as the voice of objectiveism. --92.11.124.55 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think the negative reviews should be grouped together. One person's review should not be the main negative criticism of the article. It would be the same if it were the other way around and the film was terrible. --Maestro25 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We have proportionally higher number of negative reviews on this page. --Sujit (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But other editors disagree. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Klavan's Wall Street Journal article

Are the Wall Street Journal article "What Bush and Batman Have in Common" and critical reaction to it notable enough to be included in this article? Where it could be related to certain perceptions that can be taken from the movie, is it important enough to the overall reception of the film to be mentioned? I am not trying to sound demanding in tone if this does, or to claim that the articles mention is definitely irrelevant, only to determine whether or not it need be mentioned.66.24.238.22 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121694247343482821.html link for convenience. However, the writer isn't a politician, not poli-sci type; nor is he a comic writer, a film maker, a film critic, or anything else. It's one man's op-ed, one with a sort of bizarre idea at its core, not supported by any amount of material, really. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Might want to double check that. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in that says he's a politician or a poli-sci type. Nothing in there suggests hes' got any expertise on Batman, or the film-maker's intentions. Nothing in there or in his op-ed suggests he's interviewed Christopher Nolan about Nolan's intentions, nor asked Goyer. Nowhere does it credit hims as a filmmaker or recognized film critic. I looked for something about him to validate it, there's nothing. He writes mysteries. That doesn't make him any more qualified to write about comparitive political subtexts than a cookbook writer. It's an op-ed. Further, it's an Op-Ed that really stretches to validate Bush's legacy. Further, he makes assertions about a bunch of other films which aren't really supported by anything but his own personal interpretations. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a screenwriter and a novelist - I'm not arguing that this should or shouldn't be included, actually - but I think that your dismissal solely on the basis of credentials is both fallacious and irrelevant. The question is whether this would enhance the article. Per MOSFILM, it would be beneficial to have a themes and motifs section eventually, especially since (regardless of how they are interpreted) the film is generally agreed to have political overtones. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In EW, or Empire, last week or the week before, Nolan was interviewed, and said that he didn't really go for them, but he's sure they're there cause he does live in the world. Wish I'd grabbed it, but I was reading it at the newsstand, and I can't afford to finance the articles here, lol. As such, any outside interpretations are inferences, not implications. SInce every person on earth can infer different things, but the creator imply only one, I think if he didn't imply, then we have to be extremely careful about adding too much. ThuranX (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may be. But the themes and motifs section is generally reserved for noted critical interpretations, so that's not really relevant. (Also, I seem to recall that the Village Voice article is preoccupied with the question...) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but I think it should be made into a new sub-section (Political Themes or something similar) under Critical Reception; there's been a lot of talk about the political implications of the movie, and there are no doubt parts of the movie meant to allude to the current political situation, though I personally don't think there's the kind of over-arching theme that Klavan proposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.22.188 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an important part of the way people are seeing the film and should be mentioned. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But how widespread is this interpretation? I know other articles had varying responses to it, but does it accurately reflect a substantial viewpoint? 66.24.238.22 (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's substantial enough that it got a column in the WSJ - that surely is enough to meet RS. The article should cover as much critical ground as is feasible - we're not agreeing with the article by mentioning it; we're merely describing one of a number of critical essays on the subject. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Concern about plot

The second to last paragraph is unclear about the Joker's "end" (at least his last scene in the film). It makes it sound like the SWAT team did all the capturing, which isn't true. I think we need to make it more clear that Batman subdues him completely as the SWAT team arrives. Wrad (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little misleading (though unimportant in the long run). I'll reword shortly. Incidentally, in the section we refer to Joker as the Joker. Is that just my misremembering it? I could have sworn he was referred to as the former throughout the film, with the "the" seldom (or not at all) used. Someone who's seen it more than once might want to confirm this one way or the other and update the section accordingly. Steve ^{T • C} 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember well enough. I noticed one case in the article where it was just "Joker" and changed it to make it uniform, but we can do whatever we want. I would add that Batman is referred to as "the Batman" in the film very frequently. Do we want to change that? Wrad (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Batsuit description

The current batsuit description happily mixes reality ("made from nylon") with fiction ("retractable razors that can be fired") — these should be sorted out. Jpatokal (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Superhero movie or Superhero/action film?

What do you guys think is correct do put in the frontpage, "superhero/action film" or just "superhero movie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the lead sentence says: "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero/action film co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan." My problem with this is, "Superhero film" covers action films. It is redundant to place a film in multiple categories when one will suffice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just "superhero film", no need to get so specific with opinions about its genre. This movie was action, a psychological drama/thriller, a tragedy and a crime film. That it's a Batman film (an infamous, often dark fictional vigilante) directed by Nolan (a psychologically deep filmmaker) says it all. Alientraveller (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that superhero is more of a style than a genre, so it should be style/maingenre, so let's vote, Superhero or Supero/Action film!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion". And action is a style, not a genre. You can film a movie where two people fight but it's not action. Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. In other words, we don't "vote", per say. Superhero films aren't "styles". A style is the way a film is shot, the techniques used to make it. You cannot shoot a film in "superhero style". The film is either about superheroes or it isn't. I western wouldn't be a "superhero film" if someone did heroic acts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Action is a genre as much as drama, thrillr, horror, there is no genre called superhero at least not on film genre or imdb or www.filmsite.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if IMDb lists it or not. The fact remains that "superhero film" encompasses multiple genres, and is the PRIMARY descriptive category for this film. "Action film" is something you'd find for Lethal Weapon 2. THAT is an "action film".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, Lethal Weapon 2 was more of an action-comedy rather than just an action film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have set it to "Superhero film" so no more discussion on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not ok. Please resume discussion after block expires. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unlocking me :-) §InuYoshi§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My, this is some presumptuous 'discussion'. I'm with Alientraveller and Bignole here. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight's Genre

I'm thinking about removing the action categories in TDK because I think DK is more of a crime drama than an action movie. There are action scenes, but not that many to consider it an action movie. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Both "Action films" and "Action thriller films" should really be removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the third highest grossing film, ever

Choose one of the many links. oh, and why isn't this included?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dark+knight+third+highest

Hellothar999 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The amount it's grossed is in the article. Also, that figure is only the domestic. Worldwide figures are much different, then you adjust for inflation, and it's nowhere near third. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's worth something to say the intro. And also, why don't we put "impact" as the title of one the articles here? I mean you get movies that had nowhere near an impact like Spiderman, etc. and they have the neve to say 'impact'. It's like, if anything, shouldn't we include it in this film? Hellothar999 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight on imdb

The Dark Knight is now #3 in imdb. The Shawshank is now in #1 and The Godfather #2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As it's been said many times before, we don't use IMDb as a source. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Jolin1" :
  • {{Cite journal | first=Dan |last=Jolin | title=The Dark Knight | journal=[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]] | volume=228 | year=2008 | month=July | publisher=[[Bauer Verlagsgruppe]] | accessdate=2008-06-05 | pages=92-100}}
  • {{cite journal | first=Dan | last=Jolin | title=Fear Has a Face | url=http://www.empireonline.com/magazine/covers/image.asp?id=24227&gallery=1365&caption=%23223%20%28January%202008%29 | journal=[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]] | volume=223 | month=January | year=2008 | pages=87–88 | publisher=[[Bauer Verlagsgruppe]] | accessdate=2008-07-08}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of plot section

Wouldn't it be a good idea to remove the plot section? Because it tells the entire story of the movie and spoils it for those who haven't seen. I think we should write a plot for this article when it is relasead on DVD, or atleast put a big spoiler warning or some kind of text filtering to hide the plot details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a good idea. If someone doesn't want to know what happens in the movie, then the "good idea" will be not to read the plot section. You already know from trailers the basic idea of the movie, and from reading the lead paragraphs of this article. Per WP:SPOILER, we wouldn't place spoiler tags in sections that will obviously contain spoilers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is The Dark Knight an action film?

If so, it should be categorized under action categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.209.17 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a superhero film, which takes care of multiple genres.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes InuYoshi

Why do I get this feeling that this Anon (who doesn't have an edit beyond asking if this is an "action film") is really InuYoshi using a sock puppet to try and create the illusion of consensus?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

take it to WP:RFCU, the quack test is enough. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a superhero film and an action film. They are not mutually exclusive. Cop 663 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One does tend to be a subgenre of the other. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

...and the sources say? rootology (T) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that there there is anti TDK mods here

First: The line "broke multiple box office records and was greeted by critical acclaim upon release" is an understatement. 'greeted by critical acclaim' could mean movies that are in the high 70s to 80s perecentile on RT. This movie holds a 94% based on over 200 reviews - that's EXTREMELY good reviews. Many other well written article comes out and say 'overwhelmenly' rave reviews, why not this article? THere are thousands of news articles that discuss how this movie has earned almost universal acclaim. ALso, the 'broke multiple box office records'. Why not we discuss what records it broke? "broke multiple box office records such as "___" ?

Second: Unadjusted for inflation, it's the third highest grossign film in america. VERY notable info, as it's been constantly covered in the news. Don't believe me? Google it yourself. I *think* it's included in the article but it should unarguably be included in the intro.

Third: Many movie articles that haven't had this much success had the nerve to have to title some of the sections of the page under 'Impact'. We just include 'theatrical run'. If anything, we should have 'impact' for this movie.

Discuss Hellothar999 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We try to keep the language as neutral as possible, especially to avoid "peacock terms". While reviews (in my opinion, justifiably) are slavishing heaping praise on TDK, we still have to be neutral. rootology (T) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. Just editors like you and me. First, the article identifies the overall reception of the film by critics, stating the very numbers you just shared. So what is the problem? There is a compilation of individual reviews reflecting differing perspectives of different aspects of the film, following the fact that we know the positive reviews in the compilation were more frequent. Feel free to point out what other articles use the term "overwhelmingly" since this does sound like a peacock term and probably needs to be revised. As for the box office information, you are welcome to add it to the article if you want. The Dark Knight is an ongoing success, so not everybody can keep up with all the records. :) I had written the first four paragraphs of the "Theatrical run" subsection a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't gotten around to updating it. Lastly, the film has barely been out, so what kind of "Impact" has it had that is not already mentioned in "Theatrical run" or "Critical reception"? A perspective of a film's impact needs to be historical. For example, it could be said that The Dark Knight has forever influenced the way superhero films will be made. Yet we don't know if this is true because productions on other superhero films are already completed or still in planning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The deaths of Loeb and Judge

"When public officials, including Commissioner Gillian B. Loeb and the judge presiding over the mob trials, are found among the murdered, Bruce decides to reveal his identity." This seems to imply that Loeb and the Judge are killed, then "found", I think it needs to be made clearer that the Joker poisons Loeb and the Judge is blown up by a car bomb, otherwise the current version doesn't really make it clear that these are the result of the Joker's actions. I may attempt a re-write but wanted to try to seek some kind of consensus on the wording. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A previous version was clearer, IIRC, but subsequent expansions on the wording introduced the ambiguity. Now reworded. Steve ^{T • C} 09:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Box Office

Can we have a separate box office section? --Sujit (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the "Theatrical run" subsection? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cream of the Crop

Hi I just wanted to add one thing: On the page it says that cream of the crop critics are 90% favorable but that is not correct. In fact a 100% are favorable of the film Link: http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/?critic=creamcrop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.13.143 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

UK RT's Top Critics only includes 12 critics, where the US RT's Top Critics includes 40 critics, which is a better sample size. It'd be inappropriate to pursue a higher percentage with less of a sample. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sequel info in article

Has enough time gone by to begin adding credible links and a small section into the article concerning the inevitable sequel? I'm not planning on adding anything, but I have read a few articles on the matter, especially those concerning possible villians for the next film. One mentioned Johny Depp as the Riddler. Perhaps we could have a section now that the film has been in theaters a while. I'm sure the The Dark Knights' producers, writers, and director have commented up to this point. 75.90.148.70 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliably sourced info - that is to say concrete details, not rumors - could be added to the Batman (film series) article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And the depp stuff, like the Jolie stuff, are just rumors. ThuranX (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing film in North America

Pick any link you want:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dark+knight+second+highest

Worth mentioning? Hellothar999 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap!

The article is friggin' huge! Does anybody else think it needs to be scaled back a bit? I mean just look at it, I know there's alot to be said but damn, we don't need every minor detail in it. Zabbethx (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the plot summary could be trimmed down per WP:PLOT, but the article is under 100k and extensively sourced, so I don't really think it's that big. faithless (^speak) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The plot is 736 words. For a 2 1/2 hour movie, that's pretty good word count. Since WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, and not WP:PLOT, dictates more of the length of the plot section, I think this meets the criteria. I think the critical reception section could use a trimming, but I'm more inclined to wait till the film has left theaters before cleaning it up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

there may be some trimming needed, but the majority of emphasis is on real world content, which shouldn't be shoehroned to meet arbitrary numbers. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. This is actually a pretty good article, as these usually get bogged down with heavy plot synopses and a bunch of cruft. After taking another look, I agree with Bignole that the critical reception section could certainly be tightened up, but there's no rush. faithless (^speak) 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Article size, the max range where size may become an issue is between 6,000 and 10,000 words (depending on the topic and how well an article is written/organized. This article is currently a bit more than 7,500 words. From what I've seen, the article is well-organized and well-written but some summarizing and (possibly) splitting off of detail, per WP:SS may be needed soon. --mav (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the readable prose method (slightly more accurate a representation, as you can leave out "words" that really don't count). The actual article size is about 46 kb, which is no where near splitting length.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dent is dead

A reference: http://movies.ign.com/articles/898/898426p1.html

Confirmed dead in both the official movie novelization and the script. Do we really need to keep the rather cheesy-sounding "lies motionless" (which I feel implies he's alive) or can we put an end to that now? Scm621 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie villains don't die. They wait for the sequel. Alientraveller (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then let's write that he's dead and wait to re-edit it when evidence exists otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, to be less jokey, the whole point of the death was its ambigiousness. This has already been discussed and the screenplay was written in 2006, so it's not the end all. Alientraveller (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is original research, IMHO. The problem is that even if Dent doesn't appear in the next film, even if he continues to be referred to as dead in all future films, this persistent belief isn't going to go away amongst diehards. However, the evidence (currently) says otherwise. This is an editable article, so why not simply follow the evidence, and write it as if he's dead until proven otherwise? I'm happy to change it again when there is persuasive evidence that the character is clearly not dead. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that the screenplay and the official movie novelization have been changed since being written is original research and there is currently no evidence to suggest that this is actually the case. Considering anyway that the "ambiguousness" you talk about (which, by the way, is not the point of anything) is easily interpreted as resulting from the PG-13 rating, I'd say we're pretty much good for a change here. Furthermore, the current plot section is less concise and more vague than it would be if it were changed to "lies dead." There are other reasons to change it, but considering we do have official word, I'd suggest this is all more than adequate for a change.Scm621 (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum InuYoshi (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What a random comment. This is not casual conversation, it presentation of information. Alientraveller (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume he was referring to the "Movie villains don't die..." comment, which was more forum-y than necessary. Anyway, let's get past that and back to the main point.Scm621 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)