Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 10

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)

Rumored: Escape from Arkham. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/2715855571_a15c125d28_o.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.152.21 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't deal in rumors. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR for the gist of it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this was supposed to be the case but Nolan decided to combine the two movies in one movie . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.199.9 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

About Two-Face's Fate

Hi - if it's any help to the ongoing article here - the shooting script for the film explicitly states that he dies from a broken neck. hope that helps --129.11.76.216 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And we have producers saying otherwise. It may be that during the filming, a decision was made to change things. We have an interview comment from after the production, and a script from before/during. Tough to see how to balance these, but my inclination is to use the after, since after is when a person can truly speak about what was done, not what 'should' be done soon. ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be good also to see how much the shooting script diverges from the final product. If they're essentially identical, there may be a point; but if there are significant changes, then obviously it would have problems being used as a source for this matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well , depp was approached to play the riddler , Hoffman was approached to play penguin , and jolie was rumoured to play catwoman . So , I think the third one will not have 2 face in it cause we would have to much villians in it . The thing I want to say is that I think 2 face died in the the second one cause if he did survive I dont think they would be looking to get this much villians in the 3rd .

Without reliable sources, that will have to remain idle speculation. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the castings http://movies.ign.com/articles/895/895689p1.html here is a source .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.199.9 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That article just recounts RUMORS. Not one named production source. We have yet to get citation that Christopher Nolan's going to do a third; in fact, the only comment I'd read yet was that one WB exec said they're waiting to hear from Nolan, no the opther way around. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

All vehicle license plates were shown to be from the state of Illinois Aprolph (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)aprolph

Not an inconsistency. The movie had to film somewhere, and different cities and states have differing rules about whether films can have fake plates. There's a limit to what you can do to 'make it gotham'. Unless someone can specifically cite that Nolan deliberately left the plates on with the purpose of setting Gotham in Illinois and why, I say leave it off the page and write it off to that horrible thing we call the real world bureaucracy. ThuranX (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were actually Gotham license plates, used on the prop vehicles brought in by the production crews. They appear similar to real-life Illinois license plates, with the red lettering and white/blue stripes, but have the name "Gotham" substituted for "Illinois" across the stop, and have some a circular Gotham logo in the center substituted for a picture of Abe Lincoln's head. This was done so all of the vehicles brought into Chicago by the film crew (police cars, Bruce's Lamborghini, taxis, etc.) could blend in with with real-life cars from Chicago residents that were used in the background of various street scenes, which naturally, had actual Illinois plates. This technique was also used in Batman Begins. 172.131.79.40 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Mark

Hey, can you give us a citation for that? It'd be neat to mention. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot section mistakes

The Joker frees Two-Face after burning the money not before. The call he makes after burning the money was to the show that was airing Reese's big reveal. That's where he issues the hospital explosion warning. The bridge destruction, if I remember correctly, was done by the hostages from the hospital. To be more specific, it was done by the kidnapped reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.19.85 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 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.[1] 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)

He's only in the beginning, not on the fairy, nor does Batman torture him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.162.178 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The person you saw on the ferry was the man that harvey dent / two-face captures who is wearing racheal's name tag

Scarecrow's not tortured you idiots. He was briefly interrogated in "Begins." In this one he was just captured and tied up. It would make sense he was on the ferry, but I don't understand why he wore a prison guard's uniform. Besides, the movie was a bit long for some people, (which might explain all the money made off the movie from people coming back) so mistakes happen.

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)

I can't add this, as the page is semi-protected, so can someone else add something about IMDB putting out a poll asking if The Dark Knight could surpass Titanic? It's getting close. Crosshairs-1 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No one will add it, as it's trivial at best, and subject to the same vote-stacking as the other polls and ratings. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

this is bs, imdb should be included

yeah yeah yeah, I know IMDB is open to corruption. Big deal. So is everything else. Production companies have a long history of paying for good reviews. And critical reviews (i.e. Rottentomatoes and Megacritic) and cinemascore are the epitome of recentism, as critics and polled audiences give their reviews right when the movie comes out. At least scores on IMDB are semi-normalized as the number of votes keeps increasing over time. Also, IMDB Top 250 also only includes votes from regular votes.

I do not deny the fact that a small group of fanboys can make a dent in the movies rating, but readers aren't stupid. They know that when it comes to online polling, there are gonna be plenty of repeat votes - and if they're unsure about the reliability of IMDB, they can just click on it and read the page on it. IMDB is integral to the reception of a movie because it's the best system that shows how all people received the movie and is most widely used as the source for how all people received the movie.

Also, I would like to note that even though the demographic of IMDB is skewed toward males (which doesn't even matter, since all polls relating to movies are demographically skewed in one way or the other), that the 25,000 females gave it the same rating as the 160,000 males. Yeah, some sexually confused fanboys could be making accounts and listing their gender as female, but it's obvious they're not doing that so much since the ratio between males and females is mostly consistent with other movies (and yes, contrary to popular belief, some women actually do use IMDB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.6.254 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So we should include knowingly flawed data? I don't really follow your reasoning. There's a misconception that the idea here is perfection per se; it isn't. If other information in the article is subsequently found to be equally as flawed, it too will be removed at that time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Present/present perfect tense in critical reception

Why is the journalistic present/present perfect used in the critical reception? It reads quite oddly ("NPR film critic David Edelstein has been less enthusiastic toward the film, saying it ..."). The section is also overly long in my opinion. 74.61.35.62 (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Certification Controversy

There has been a lot of discussion in the UK and a large number of complatins to the BBFC about the 12A certificate awarded. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7540292.stm A search of news reveals similar discussion elsewhere around the world. Should this be added to the entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshawkestrel (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great addition! Here is another relevant headline related to the rating. We should try to find more about the PG-13 rating in the U.S. and combine all these resources for a possible "Rating" subsection. It would be much more informative than just listing certificates for each country. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Official Cast List Order

According to the Official film poster, the official cast list order is:

Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Morgan Freeman

Please do NOT change the order of the cast list.

cchow2 (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite irrelevant, as long as a general ordering principle (e.g. prominence, alphabetical, etc) is adhered to. We're not strictly handcuffed to any "official" listing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant, because actors often are credited as "First Male Lead," etc. I think everyone would say Heath Ledger is the stand-out actor here, but he's still the third lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.22.188 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sal Maroni

There needs to be some mention of Batman's decapting strike against the mob having failed, near the begining the plot section (Sal Maroni having replaced Carmine Falcone as the leader of the mob.) Xargon666x6 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like? It's only briefly mentioned in the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 6 August 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

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. [2][3][4][5][6] - 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dark Knight: The Novel

Why doesn't someone create a page for the Dark Knight novel by Dennis O'Neil, I've read this book and it's excellent. I don't know how to crreate a new article and I don't know how to edit articles either. So.... InuYoshi (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mainly, because it's the same as the movie. There can be a mention of it on the page, but to have another article dedicated to the book (which was spawned from the movie), would be redundant. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 21:10, 18 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)

Didn't Nolan say that Batman is NOT a superhero? Here on BBC--FilmFan69 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[ed. Accordingly I changed the "superhero" link to "action" per a cited reference quoting the director. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's him personally, that doesn't change what it is. He certainly didn't say that he views it as an "action film" either, so why assume that is what he means. For all we know, he views the film as a psychological thriller. The film is still a superhero film, as Batman will continue to be a superhero, no matter how his film is styled.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be selective reasoning. When it comes to Dent's death everybody cries out "wait until the director says it, otherwise it's not true!" But here, we have a quote, and you immediately invalidate it. He's the director, if he says it's not a superhero film then it's not a superhero film. If you ignore his quote here then it invalidates your arguments about Dent's death as well. Pick one - but you don't get to have both. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective reasoning? You mean original research? Why is is that The Dark Knight isn't a superhero film, yet Batman Begins is? I don't believe I made a comment that we should wait till the director clears up Dent's death (I think you were referring to a comment I made that "unless he says something explicitly stating..."? - The difference in those two things was an actual plot point in the movie and an interpretation of the film's genre). Here, Nolan says that he doesn't view The Dark Knight as a superhero film, that doesn't change the fact that it still is - only this one isn't in the same style as what is typically shown. Nolan's words were: "never viewed the movie as a superhero film" - that does not mean "IS NOT", it means that he didn't view it as such when he was making it. That's clear from his style, but "superhero film" is not a style, it's a genre.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of OR?! It's right there in the article. That's not OR dude - thats a quote so don't muddle the issue by claiming OR. My reference to the Dent thing is that you've supported the assertion by others that Dent isn't dead and the reasoning given was that the director didn't say it. So then that means that the director's word is ostensibly valuable. But in this instance it isn't. That's inconsistent. Plain and simple. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that other users agree that maybe it shouldn't say superhero. And before you think I logged out and did it, get a checkuser. Those aren't my IPs. It's only you, ThuranX and Alientraveler that want it to be superhero. I've agreed with a lot of your points in the past but I don't think you're totally right on this one. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all to keep it action film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.150.157 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed? It is a superhero movie, and as such is also an action movie, as all superhero movies are. This really is one of the sillier discussions I've seen lately. Batman is a superhero, this is a Batman movie, therefore this is a superhero movie. faithless (^speak) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it too, Batman is not a superhero, Superman is a superhero, he has super powers, Batman doesn't. Action film InuYoshi (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So Faithless, you don't care that Nolan himself said it's not a superhero film? --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If Leonardo said that the Mona Lisa wasn't a painting, would that make it true? faithless (^speak) 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Clever, but irrelevant. Nolan isn't saying it's not a film, we're talking about style. That would be more akin to Leonardo saying it's not a portrait, but more of a character study. Maybe you should read up on analogy, metaphor, and humor. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Superhero: of unprecedented physical prowess dedicated to acts of derring-do in the public interest." - As determined by the court case of the National Periodical Publications v. Empire Comics. Nothing about "superpowers" in that definition. Thus, Batman is a superhero. As for "other users agree" - first, it appears to only be you and Yoshi, and Yoshi agreed a little while ago to leave it as "superhero film" (though, he has been trying to secretly revert it back when no one is paying attention). That being said, if me, ThuranX, Alien, and Faithlessthewonderboy (there are others, as this isn't the first time this has been debated) think it should be "Superhero film", and only you and Yoshi think it should action film...exactly where does that fall in consensus?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Batman is a superhero movie, but the main genre is action, and superho is not considered by the vast majority as a genre. Superhero isn't a genre. So keep it an action film. InuYoshi (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what makes "action" the primary genre? Last time I checked this was no Road House. The primary genre is "superhero film", the fact that superhero films is a relatively new genre (only popularized in the last 10 years) doesn't change the fact that it's still the genre of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Then, Shawshank Redemption is not a drama, it's a prison movie, Green Mile is not a drama either, it's the "black man with healing power" genre.... so I think we should add Prison and Black Man With Healing Power as genres InuYoshi (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add also, that there are few superhero movies for "superhero" to be considered a genre" General consensu says that a new genre should have at leat 1000 movies, Superhero doesn't even have 500. InuYoshi (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the difference is that "prison movie" does not encompass "drama", whereas "superhero film" DOES encompass "action film". Now you are just trying to take extreme differences in film, and the argument holds no water. Where are you getting that a genre must have 1000 movies for it to be considered legit? I've not heard such a thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The major genres of movies, are generally action, adventure, animation, comedy, crime, drama, family, fantasy, horror, musical, mystery, romance, sci-fi, thriller. war and western. All of them have over 1000 movies, minor genres such as biography, documentary, hystory/epic, music, sport, short are minor genres because they have less movies, the smallest genre is film-noir, there are just around 450 films noirs, that's because they stopped making films noirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, exactly where are you pulling this information. Please, show me where it says that "to be a genre you need 1000 films". Otherwise, you're just floating your own personal opinion of what makes a genre, and this isn't the place for such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's just random OR and SSYNTH pulled out of your ass, inuyoshi. there are well over a thousand documentaries, and biographies, guaranteed. Just because you haven't heard of all 1000, or your local blockbuster doesn't stock them all doesn't make it so. It's a superhero movie, Batman's a superhero, move onto something useful. Nolan was talking about his approach to the story and making of the film, not about classification by genre. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Documentaries and Bio-pics are not generally major genres, there are not enough superhero movies to make it a genre, if superhero encompasses action and other things, let's just say that crime/thriller/mystery/horror also emcompasses drama because there is always a bit of drama in crime/thriller/mystery/horror/biopics. so, let's say, saying "bigraphical drama" is redudant, or crime drama is also redudant, since crime-only movies always have a bit of drama. Let's keep it an action film, once superhero becomes a genre, we can change it to that. InuYoshi (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, your personal definition of "genre" has not place here. Unless you can provide some credible source that says "you need X-amount of films to be an official genre", then please stop trying to pass your definition off as credo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Only after you prove the cinema industry that Superhero is a full fledged genre as drama, action or thriller (not to mention others).lol . InuYoshi (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one trying to provide some concrete definition, so the responsibility is is yours to prove.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything, imdb lists TDK as action/crime/drama/thriller, and the vast majority of movie websites do not consider superhero a genre, and superhero will take years to become a full-fledged genre. By now, I have to sleep, but tomorrow I will revert superhero back to action film again lol sorry, now its up to you FilmFan69. InuYoshi (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew you were going to pull stuff from IMDb. Guess what, we don't use IMDb to wipe the snot from our noses, let alone as a source for anything in our articles. IMDb has a funny way of doing a lot of things. Thank you for acknowledging that you will purposefully engage in an edit war, even after an Administrator has told you not to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOLOL Bignole, I am not talking about imdb, I'm talking about the general consensu of movies genres, in nowhere superhero is considered a genre, only for people like you it is a genre~. good by, need to sleep InuYoshi (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, only in your head is there a "general consensus", as you have shown no one here any actual evidence of such. Just your personal definitions, which have no bearing on this discussion. Have a good night.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are various "main" genres, and then there are subgenres which split off from them. For example, horror is a genre, and then you have subgenres like slasher and monster movies. Superhero is a subgenre of action movie. In the context of this article, I think "Superhero" is more specific and accurate.  Paul  730 04:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can have a comedy about a superhero (Superhero Movie) and you can have a drama about a superhero (pick one) and you can have a romance about a superhero (I dunno), but the thing that changes is the genre. It may be ABOUT a superhero, but that's not its genre. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 11:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When it's a parody, it's a comedy, as the primary force of the movie is to make fun of said topic. You can have a superhero movie with drama in it, but I've not seen a drama about a superhero. Typically, it's a movie about the superhero, with him doing his superhero stuff, and some drama going on with the character. It may CONTAIN drama, action, or romance, but that doesn't change the fact that it is primarily a superhero film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend"...(My work here is done) --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you just claim My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a dramatic film that contains a superhero? I'm curious, as that was what I asked for. Though, I would give you that that film is probably more of a romantic comedy than a superhero film, since the superhero portion of it is really a backseat plot element. The Dark Knight does not experience such a thing, as the superhero portion of it is the primary plot element.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was pointing to an example of a film that contained a superhero but was not a superhero movie per se. And I was being a little tongue-in-cheek about it. Of course we can't leave out HULK: Married. No actually, we can. But seriously, I get your point about Uma's character but it's not really a subplot - it's the main thrust of the movie and in the title. I do see the point made much earlier that superhero is a sub-genre of action though. I'm not sure where InuYoshi got the figures about genres but it's worth exploring. Lastly, I still think it's worth noting that Nolan states it's not a Superhero film. It does cast the film in a different light, notwithstanding the pithy comment about if Da Vinci said the Mona Lisa wasn't a painting then is it still a painting. That analogy is, of course, irrelevant, since that would be like saying Nolan claimed it's not a film which is not the case. We're talking about style here, not the lowest common denominator of what to name the object itself. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nolan didn't say The Dark Knight is not a superhero film. What Nolan said was that he did not view it as one. How he views it is not the same thing as him acknowledging that it is in fact a superhero film. Robocop is an action film with satirical elements in it, but the director Paul Verhoeven might view it as a satire with action elements, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie is an action film. The difference is that Nolan has a higher appreciation for the psychological things he created with Batman, than he does the fact that Batman movies boil down to superhero films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Immediately after using the Leonardo analogy I regretted it (it was just the first that came to mind), so here's a better one: if Jay Roach said that Austin Powers wasn't a comedy series, would that make it so? faithless (^speak) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If Magritte paints a picture of a pipe, and says it's not a pipe. Does it make a sound? Ceci n'est pas un action film. OK - I give, it's a superhero film.--FilmFan69 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

If we're redirect "The Dark Knight" to "The Dark Knight (film)", then it stands to reason that we should simply move this page to the former title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the former should go to the disambiguation page myself, indeed reverted an earlier attempt to point it here. Doesn't it smack of recentism to redirect it here? Steve ^{T • C} 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Having "Dark Knight" be a disambiguation page makes the most sense. It's used in a variety of ways in relation to Batman, so tying it to just this film is a bit odd. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If we keep it the way it is, the this page should be moved. I have no qualms about redirecting "The Dark Knight" to the disamgibuous page though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have The Dark Knight redirect here. It is not a "primary topic" per se, being first and foremost one of Batman's monikers. Redirecting it here implies that the film article should be the primary topic. My opinion is that if there is any kind of debate about disambiguation, then the disambiguation page serves to sever the Gordian knot by showing all articles. It's one additional click. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 19 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)

I fail to see official word. We all have seen numerous incidences of novelizations varying from the film; and all we have here is the writer's own synthesis of sources and his personal conclusion. O'Neil can speak only to his own novelization, he was, unlike The producer, not involved in the film. This would be like asking Asimov for conclusions about the characters in Will Smith's I, Robot movie. Get a quote from Nolan. Eckhart believes a return of the character is possible, hence his publicly documented comments about returning to the role. ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The script (co-written by Nolan) says he is dead. That's more than just the novelization, and that's pretty darn official.Scm621 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Will Smith movie was very loosely based on Asimov's story, not the other way around, so that's a really poor example. The book here is an official novelization of the movie. It may have errors or be inaccurate on this point, but that is speculation until confirmed, and this is Wikipedia, not a fansite for The Dark Knight. Speculation belongs there, not here. Furthermore, as I already noted, there is the script (also mentioned in that article I referenced), which very clearly says he is dead. In other words, we have an official novelization and the script saying he's dead. That's two official sources. If they are incorrect, we need a reference saying they are incorrect from an official source, otherwise it's speculation and original research. It doesn't belong here. There are two clear, official sources saying Dent is dead (one coming from the script co-written by Nolan, which is more or less what you just said you wanted). There are no official sources saying he isn't. The answer is pretty clear at this point.Scm621 (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Alien was making was that the script was written well before Ledger died, and often times things are changed during filming (not necessarily as a result of Ledger's death), even in post-production, that don't always coincide with the original script. We base things off of what we see, and there is apparently variant opinions on what was seen on the screen. Hence, that is why we decided on "lies motionless", so as not to give too much favor to either side. Also, Girolamo, there is no "change it if he appears in the sequel". We don't retcon articles - we didn't change the carjacker's name in the first Spider-Man article when it was revealed in the third film. The plot to A New Hope doesn't list Vader as Luke's father, because it isn't something revealed until the next film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But assuming that things changed during filming from the official script is speculation, and that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Unless there is a confirmed, official statement that says "things have changed since then and Dent isn't dead" we are working on the official word we are given, which is that he's dead.Scm621 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say he isn't dead? It says nothing either way. Wrad (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It says he is dead, not that he isn't dead. Check the article again. Make sure you scroll past the image of Eckhart to the second half of the article.Scm621 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the wikipedia article. This is a tricky one. I'm not sure how to make the call. Movies aren't always what their writers intend them to be. Sometimes the audience sees things differently. Same goes for books or anything else, and no single interpretation is really seen as "right". Wrad (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. The compromise decided on in the days surrounding the movie's release was that it says that he "lies motionless." I read this as implying that he isn't dead, mainly because on a source like Wikipedia that should favor clarity over prose, if he's dead you say he's dead, and if he's not, you don't or say, for example, that he "lies motionless." As for movies having multiple interpretations, at best the alternate interpretations should be in their own section, and I've seen cases where extremely valid alternate interpretations (including ones acknowledged on DVD commentary and in other sources) get deleted because Wikipedia is not a fansite (not an exact quote, but that's pretty close to the comment). Actually, that's the page for The Descent, which I mention in particular because Bignole has been involved in editing that one as well so he might know what I'm talking about.Scm621 (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we base our opinions on what we saw. The film never officially says he is dead. For you to read the book and read the "script" and then say he is dead would be synthesis. What the IGN article says is that it was their intention to kill him in the script, and that was used in the book. What Emma Thomas says is that his "fate" is ambiguous enough to allow them to bring him back if they wish.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman says "I killed Dent." They have a memorial service. They show his body not moving. The movie presented him as dead and any future movie presenting him as not-dead will need to go back and explain how he not-died. What is required for a film to officially say he is dead? It's a non-existent possibility, because a movie CAN say "this person is dead" and then go and say "oh wait just kidding". For example, someone can get shot, be treated as officially dead for around a half an hour, and then suddenly show up again. On the other hand, someone falls backwards off a building, is not treated as dangerous for the rest of the scene, doesn't move for the rest of the movie, doesn't have any discussion relating the idea to hide him in secret, another character says that he killed him, and they hold a memorial service for him. This is all convincing evidence, and since the movie doesn't address his ongoing life, he's treated as dead here. As someone else pointed out, the Spider-Man 3 retcon of the first movie scene is an issue of the Spider-Man 3 page, not the Spider-Man page. Likewise, any retcon treating him differently than he is treated here (as dead, with a memorial service and a statement, "I killed Dent.") belongs on that page, not this one. And reread the synthesis section, I'm fairly certain this isn't a situation of synthesis. The conclusion is based on what is present and obvious in both, but just made even more obvious in one.Scm621 (talk)

The conclusion we made was based on the fact that we have conflicting evidence from people involved in the production, with a post-production source (the producer) contradicting a pre-production source (the script). Then we have a number of sources not related to the production, like the novelization or an IGN reporter's SYNTHesis. We chose a neutral reporting. Let readers draw their own conclusions. Unless your'e saying they can't think for themselves? ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of saying Dent "appears dead". That would be a stronger statement but still ambiguous. Wrad (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually support that for another reason, namely, that even if he is retconned as being alive in the next movie, that wouldn't need to be changed--pretty much, he is presented as being dead in this movie (memorial service and all), "appears dead" acknowledges that he is presented as being dead, and really, my biggest concern with "lies motionless" is that it sidesteps the death-presentation and I read it as implying that he is in fact not dead, simply because since saying he is dead is easier, avoiding using the word "dead" using vague language seems to suggest just the opposite.Scm621 (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it seem that way because it actually does to a neutral party or does it seem that way because you believe he's dead? Words have different connotations to different people. "Appears dead" may imply to one person that he's dead while to another it may imply he's alive. Should we take the implications of a word into value when writing or what the words are actually saying? ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I have a question for all of you...... If Harvey Dent/Two-Face is dead, why would Aaron Eckhart say that he would come back for a sequel? Wouldn't the actor himself know that his character is dead? And for whoever said that they don't die? look at the Spiderman movies......They do indeed dieOnepiece226 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

I can think of several reasons - before and during the initial release, to not spoil the fact that his character might not be returning; because he really enjoyed the role and wants to use the press to be written into the next film (a la Sam Jackson and Star Wars); because he may have already received indications that his character would return in a flashback sequence; because an interviewer's question may have been phrased in a way that would encourage that kind of response (e.g. "Would you be willing to return, if possible?" "Yes, I'd be willing to return."); etc... Unfortunately, speculating anything one way or another from Eckhart's remarks is synthesis, and hence original research. We don't know what further information he may or may not have access to, and whether or not those circumstances may change. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.gothamnationalbank.com/admin/

The special collectors edition of Batman Begins (Bluray) has a short comic based on the bank heist section of The Dark Knight. There are login details for http://www.gothamnationalbank.com/admin/ It's basically a fake email interface, with links to many websites for Gotham's businesses. I thought it would be interesting to share with people, because I've read nothing about it so far. Username: gnb3792 Pass: 99g28ct75k --Adam aka. Cho03 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• i'm pretty sure talk pages are for talking about how to improve the article, not discussing the film and its ads. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 14:16, 21 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)

it should be noted that a wall street journal article that included the WB pictures group president said a third batman film is one of the top 4 priorities for the next three years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lghess (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Got a link? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936107614461929.html?mod=2_1168_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.119.33 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't wikipedia list the genres of movies like imdb and allmovie do

The genre information would be in the infobox, so I case of doubt about a movie genre, we could put a genre part in the infox. Wikipedia in French, Portuguese and Spanish do that InuYoshi (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, IMDb just lists everything the movie could possibly fall under. If there is thriller-esque moments in the film, it gets a "Thriller" category. If there is action, "Action". If there are crimes, "Crime". Next thing you know you have a film with half a dozen genre listings, when in fact it really just falls under one (sometimes a cross between two...but rarely ever does it actually fit all of those categories that IMDb typically lists).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are not the IMDb or Allmovie, and subsequently our objectives will differ from theirs. The problem with adding the genre to the infobox is that genre can be a somewhat subjective matter (witness some of the discussions on this talk page), and also is prone to edit wars; an infobox should be brief, concise, and relatively objective. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bignole sums it up pretty well. rootology (T) 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, imdb lists The Godfathers as thrillers, so I don't think IMDB is reliable at all . InuYoshi (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is yet another reason why the IMDb should not be too closely relied upon. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anomie

"...his anarchic interpretation" should really be changed to "...his anomic interpretation." The Joker may be many things, but an anarchist is not one of them.

allixpeeke (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's based on the source (i.e. it's what they say, hence the quote), and not based on one's personal interpretation of the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It appears that anomie may be more technically correct, but for better or worse, the phrase in the film was "introduce a little anarchy", and so analyzing it as anomie, in the absence of a reliable source, is original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is correct to call Him an anarchist and the reasons I have based this one is that in the film firsthand the Joker calls himself an "agent of chaos" and says to "introduce a little anarchy" that is what his agenda is. he also said "everything burns" so it would be accurate to say that this Joker's portrayal is of anarchy. another reason would be that he killed the Commissioner, A high ranking judge, assaulted a Police institute, disfigures a public servant and threatens a mayor. and the press sources would say that Ledger based his performance in an anarchile way.

Azrael1117 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

wrong, wrong, wrong. The Joker is all about SELF. Just as Bruce Wayne/Batman is about Selflessness/ serving others. The Joker is out to get what he can, if he can do that by creating chaos, so much the better. Chaos and Anarchy are a means to an end for the Joker, but not a philosophy or a code that he lives by. Use the quote, add a (sic) to it, but never mistake causing chaos with anarchy. Joker is in control of himself first, the situation second, and the Batman when he can be. If it helps, think of Joker as a director or writer. Joker knowingly gives Batman the wrong address and has a plan for escaping jail. He uses Harvey Dent, pushes his buttons to turn Two-Face into a tortured, reluctant killer. Anarchists don't plan that far ahead. Look at the real world "chaos" at RNC conventions: stupid kids doing not much and getting pepper sprayed for it. Not exactly criminal masterminds like the Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.76 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Classifying the Joker as a terrorist

It's logical to call the Joker in this film a terrorist instead of a criminal, anarchist or anomist. His actions in the film are the reason for this judgement, from assasinating public servants to threatening people on television, to destruction of public property and holding hundreds of people hostage in a sick game of life or death, also his message of claiming the city as his own at night in a sort of non-traditional coup de' tat. Azrael1117 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He's a hyperviolent criminal, but not devoted to some overthrow of the government or the existing order. He states that chaos is a means to eliminate the bat, which he tells the mob he'll do so that the criminals can go back to running the city. Hardly terrorism, just organized crime. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Joker isn't a terrorist because he is more in love with chaos than with having any sort of monetary or governmental power. No terrorist would let a DA put a gun to his head and flip a coin to see if he lives or dies. That isn't terrorism. It's anarchy. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this. Joker definitely fits that category. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Joker is in love with himself. Chaos and anarchy are ego-serving means to ends. The Unibomber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibomber is an Anarchist and a Terrorist who shied away from the spotlight, he sought anonymity. Joker is the opposite, he loves the attention and will do anything to get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.76 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/5000.asp TA DA! and before you say "It's just Johnny Depp" read the ENTIRE article. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Nolan is expected to start work on his third Batman movie next year." Not a very reliable source for such a bold statement, when last I head Nolan was still on vacation and had not given Warner Bros. word on whether he would do another film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nolan is expected to work on the sequel as you can see. I dont see how its not a very reliable source, where else would the writer of the article get info? Nolan or his assistant or something. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to assume they got the info from Nolan or his assistance? Where is the latest info on Nolan saying he is going to make another film? Again, the last report I read Warner said they had not heard from Nolan about another film (yet).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you believe they get info? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 22:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but, up their ass for all I know. A lot of times people get inaccurate information and just run with it, because they don't have any type of editorial oversight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they 'got' that from the same place they got the rumors: Fan sites. I further distrust the article because it purports that Nolan has a 'problem', as if previously, it was a lock that Ledger would be the Joker again, but now Nolan must do something else. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)