Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 12

Characters and cast

It should have in there the russian gangster (not sure of character name or actor) but he played an important role in the film and it should also note that The Scarecrow/Dr. Crane made a cameo early in the film. ^The Jay ^Experience 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the bit about the death of Heath Ledger (the Joker) is really misplaced. Its a character summary, not an obituary. Really off-topic and unprofessional, if you ask me, only adding to the belief that Wikipedia is a poor source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.59.30 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A character summary? WP:WAF. Should it not be mentioned he finished filming this a couple of months before died? Alientraveller (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why delete what i said!?

Mis-sectioning

We have the Batpod in the "Effects" section, but that has nothing to do with effects. The creation of the batpod is a production design element. At the same time, we talk about the look of the Joker, which really borders closer to make-up effects than just simply costume design. I think we need to go through and pick out which statements are in the wrong section and find a better home for them. Anyone else?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sequel" article!?

There is an article here, I don't see it has any sources to cite the notability of it, Gotham Knights which claims to be a sequel to "The Dark Knight". The article seems pretty bogus...someone tried to delete the page but it was reverted. Can someone check this article out? I think it needs to be deleted since nothing has been said about a sequel as far as I know. Michael Betancourt (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodded, thanks. Steve ^{T • C} 08:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Betancourt (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible bias on Soundtrack

I added a small paragraph on the reception of the soundtrack. It's propperly cited, but I fear it will be erased, because I mentioned some of the score's drawbacks.

I personally didn't like it, but I've noticed it recieves a lot of hype on Soundtrack.net, but that's wierd, because all of the soundtracks with music by Hans Zimmer or any Media Ventures composer (Mark Mancina, Harry Gregson-Williams, John Powell, Ramin Djawadi and Steve Jablonsky, etc.) are very positively reviewed by the website critics. That makes me think that the website and some wiki editors commend this score a little too much. I mean, sure, the music works for the movie, but it's no Star Wars, nor Lord of the Rings, nor Back to the Future, nor Elfman's Batman and not even Goldenthal's Batman, all of which have themes that have become popular with casual (non specialist) listeners. Even Lux Aeterna from Requiem for a Dream is quite popular among lots of people, but The Dark Knight doesn't have a theme I could call "popular" or part of the "collective conciousness".

Also, in interviews and movie reviews, it is stated that Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard worked together. However, considering Newton Howard's more lush, romantic style, there's no doubt in my mind Hans Zimmer made the score himself. This article for "Batman Begins" [1] humorously implies that Zimmer used James Newton Howard as ghostwriter. Their words, not mine.

I know this is not a forum, but if there is bias, it should be taken care of. I'm saving this text and the one I added to the article just in case someone erases it (which will most likely happen) --Surten (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Surten

Here is the problem, you cannot splice your own personal opinion with that of sourced content (e.g. Soundtrack reviews gave it 100%, but they are typically biased toward Zimmerman scores). Unless you can provide some sort of reliable sourcing that discusses this bias (even then, that would only be relevant to the Zimmerman page, and not to this page), then it has no place here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not including any mention of the bias. Thanks for the help.--Surten (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Surten

Hang on, what are score reviews doing in the production section? Alientraveller (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I moved it to the CD's article.--189.234.59.176 (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Surten

Convicts on the boats

I wasnt sure after watching the movie a few times why the convicts where put on the boat, can someone add a piece that says that to the main articleJimlavalamp (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)JimLavaLamp

it's stated quite clearly, ogrdon wants hem out so they can't work for the Joekr and create more chaos. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-release date in infobox

Why isn't the re-release date included in infobox? It's notable. 195.46.35.77 (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Joker hijacked the bus?

In the article on the plot of the film it say The Joker hijacked the bus after blowing up the hospital. Was there any evidence in the film that proves he hijacked that bus? I am asking because I've seen this movie several time now and although I always wondered why they allowed him on the bus, I didn't see any threatening gestures or weapons from The Joker as he got on the bus and I didn't see any of his henchmen either. I guess we could assume they were on the bus but for that sake of accuacy in the article it should be made clear if any evidence exists if he hijacked the bus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that was the bus he drove in the opening credits. Still, it's not too important is it? Alientraveller (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he got on the bus (the same one Anthony Hall's character was pulled onto), and then asked them to let him off at another stop. Especially when the kidnapped people were doctors, nurses, and patients that he was holding hostage at the end of the film (they clearly say "clowns are hostages, doctors are the target"). Since they evacuated the hospital, it would be rather difficult to suggest that he grabbed a completely separate group of doctors/etc on his way to his hideout.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

More telling is that the police recognize that one bus is missing from the convoy, and joker later uses the hospital staff as hostages. I'll try to look at the scene tomorrow for more.ThuranX (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when he hops on the bus a shadow of him is seen slowly sliding down like he was laying on the bus hiding. Other then that i have no idea how he hijacked the bus. Jimlavalamp (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)JimLavaLamp

Somewhere on youtube I found a deleted scene of the Joker riding the bus, and never even looking back once to see all the destruction he caused. On the voiceover you hear a director or something of that sort giving info, and out of that info you can make up that it is the hyjacked bus from the hospital explosion. The scene was found on a british bluray 2disc special edition I think... This is my first post here, so I don't know if I'm allowed to post links, but this is the scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V13oMUD4La8&feature=related Hippodo (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Set the record straight

1- When Harvey Dent gets half of his face scarred, he stops being Harvey Dent and becomes Two Face. He doesn't see himself as Dent, so you shouldn't refer to him as "Dent", either.

And YES, unlike Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, that name is actually used within the movie:

Two Face: Do you remember the nickname they gave me when I was in Internal Affairs?

Commissioner Gordon: Yes

Two Face: Say it.

Comissioner Gordon: Harvey, I...

Two Face: SAY IT! SAY IT!

Comissioner Gordon: TWO FACE! TWO FACE! Harvey TWO FACE!

Two Face: Why should I hide who I truly am?

2- The Joker's clown face is NOT make up! That's how his actual face looks like.

Read "Batman: The Killing Joke".

So, please stop referring to the Joker's clown face as "makeup" in-universe.

3-"Gordon's wife and son" have names. They are Barbara Gordon Sr. and James Gordon Jr.

In addition, the little girl we see is Barbara Gordon Jr. That's why neither Batgirl nor Robin will appear in the Nolan movies: they are both little kids at the time the movies are set.

4- Given that this is a sequel, stop deleting me pointing out which actors come bacvk from Batman Begins.

First, please start all new threads at the bottom. Second, Dent does not go by the name. He talks about how the name he got while working in IAD ("Two-Face") is fitting given his now scarred face. No one, after Dent and Gordon's conversation, ever calls him "Two-Face", not even Dent himself. They never actually say that the Joker's face is permenantly colored, please do not cite a comic book as the source that proves this movie. Unless someone in this movie says it then it doesn't matter what the comic says. As for Barbara Gordon Jr., that name is never given in the film either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Gordon's wife's name is in the film. I think when Gordon comes "back from the dead" and his wife answers the door he says "Barbara...?" and she slaps him. Wrad (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but in the film the Jokers clown face is make up, we see his un made up face when he disguises as a police man at the funeral march —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.127.220 (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In "The Dark Knight Featuring Production Art and Full Shooting Script" the shooting script refers to Harvey Dent as 'Dent' through the entirety of the screenplay. It only treats Two-Face as an alias. However I don't have any pages scanned at the moment to cite. Also During the robbery in the beginning of the film the two clown/robbers have the conversation about The Joker wearing 'make-up' and actually refer to it as 'war paint'. Tsurettejr (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, it is stated that the Joker wears make up. Not to mention that most of the statement by the original poster are original research. Grsz¹¹ 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Production: burning real money?

Hey. Today I read in the Star Phoenix (a Saskatchewan newspaper) that during the production of The Dark Knight, the Joker burned a pile of real money. Actual cash. The article is here:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Entertainment/more+dignified+movies/1142426/story.html

and it was originally written in the National Post (a bigger Canadian newspaper). Is this confirmed anywhere else?

Megosoles (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Highly doubt that they burned real (American) money, as it is a federal offense per Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. –  LATICS  talk  04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was "real money" that the Treasury Department had removed from circulation (they're usually shredded, if memory serves); at that point, it wouldn't qualify as a "bank bill" anymore. And I would imagine a good special effects guy could probably glue the shreds back together (maybe onto other pieces of paper) in such a way as to make it look real enough for the camera, and that should be safe to burn... I'm just throwing stuff out here though, no idea if it was real money or not. - 208.247.73.130 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the top of each stack of bills that was close to the camera was real. Everything else would have been just green sheets of paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.120.190 (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"I only ran over him a little bit, your honor."

Seriously, the source seems more a rant than a reliable source of that info. I'd think something like that would make a bit more of a splash. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Crow

I know this could probably end up as sort of original research, but does Brandon Lee's The Crow by no means influence the design of Heath Ledger's The Joker somehow? Because I found some similarities, besides their ominous deaths. --Mato Rei (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added soundtrack reception (again)

Well, someone took out my edit about the score, and I chose to let it go. Another user commented "what are score reviews doing in the production section?" (can't remember who, beacuse they erased my comment on the talk page as well), and I thought it was fair enough. I would have kept my mouth shut, except for my stumbling upon the article for Alien vs. Predator (film) which also has soundtrack reviews on THE PRODUCTION SECTION, under "Music". Now, if I see the soundtrack reception on AvP is taken out, I'll give it a rest. But if it's still there, well, why shouldn't we also add a reception of Zimmer and Howard's soundtrack? --Surten (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

In this article? Because it's already long enough that we don't need to focus on those aspects of the film. The soundtrack has its own page, so the reception for the soundtrack should go on that page instead of on this one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what about the AvP article? If it that section on the soundtrack is erased, I'll cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surten (talk • contribs) 06:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's just three lines of text. It's not an excessive amount of information. It could use a little trim on the description of the composition process. You said it, there's already an article to the album. Why include it here? --Surten (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

We're not trying to match the Alien vs. Predator article. Articles don't have to be the same as others. –  LATICS  talk  06:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I already told you. If the reception in AvP is erased, it'll be the last you'll hear from me about this particular thing. --Surten (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

Took out "excessive information" that belongs in the Soundtrack article, not the movie's article

All of the following is too much info for a general article about a film, and it belongs on a more detailed soundtrack article:

"Zimmer originally said the main Batman theme was purposely introduced at the end of Batman Begins, and would be fleshed out in the sequel as the character develops. Zimmer and Howard both realized that creating a heroic theme that a viewer could hum would ignore the complexity and darkness of the character. That the heroic theme is audible only twice, early on in the film, creates what Zimmer described as a "red herring", a kind of musical foreshadowing.

...which Zimmer claimed Nolan fully memorized.

...Zimmer compared its style to that of Kraftwerk, a band from his native Germany, as well to bands like The Damned."

It's all here, if you want to add it back. --Surten (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

Why yes, I think we'll try to make the article about the film and the music in it stand alone as much as possible. Alientraveller (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept bit on Kraftwerk, willing to leave others in soundtrack article. Alientraveller (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the whole fuss, y'all. --Surten (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Surten.

Dendermonde nursery attack

This section has been reverted from the article without explanation, save for the fact hat I should find a consensus for inclusion beforehand. Usually, that would be an appropriate defense for someone adding crufty, uncited or unrelated material, but such is not the case here. We have citations (1, 2, 3) from reliable sources notably making the connection (and I am sure that there will be more) connecting the event to a deranged individual's identification with a character depicted in this movie. I've tagged the section as a current event. If someone wants to delete it - and I am not at all convinced that it should be - we need to discuss how we are going to overlook the presence of connecting citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its good information but I don't think it belongs on this page. Maybe it could be linked in a "see also" section but it has no direct correlation to the movie. Yes, it may have been inspired by one of the characters in the film, but in the section you provided, "Any formal link between the attacks and the movie were formally discounted by De Gelder's lawyers." Bovineboy2008 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it isn't our function to be evaluating the PR statements by Mr. Gelder's attorneys; our function is to note the information (maybe even including the his attorney's formal statements) that is clearly cited and connected. Gelder's attorney's can say all they want. We have at least three sources noting the connection, and the litmus for inclusion is verifiability. We have verification, and until the current event info (ergo the template noting such) develops into noting that the massacre was inspired by Beatles lyrics or Twinkies, we should go with a heavily-cited connection to the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This incident already appears on the Joker page, where it is far more relevant than the movie. The cop compared him tot he Joker, not to heath Ledger; making that bit of synth is above our pay grade. Over at that page, coverage has been minimal, because of the Recentism and changing nature of a current event. All we've really got is one officer saying HE thought it looked like the joker, and lots of media hullaballoo because that's what the 24 hours news industry does, churns out FUD for profit. In a few days, it'll transition to him being a 'evil goth kid', then to the truth, mentally unhinged idiot. I see no reason to include it here. ThuranX (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, Arcayne, it's a barely related current event, you were bold and added, it was reverted, so per Bold,Revert, discuss, bringing it here was perfectly appropriate. ThuranX (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As well, one source is in another language, and a blurb. The other two admit it's unfounded speculation. One early report attributed the comparison to the Joker to an unnamed officer; I haven't seen that attribution repeated since, which suggests that it was a conjured citation based on some unattributable commentary, and when the police refuted it, it became 'speculation' in the general sense. Unless we can get a statement that the police are actively reporting that it was Joker-related, it shouldn't be on any page, and unless specifically Ledger's Joker related, it doesn't belong on this one. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Respectfully:

• the incident is connected via the source material to Ledger's portrayal, not Cesar Romero's, Jack Nicholsen's or Mark Hamill's - which means that it arose out of this film.
• even if we only have "one officer" saying he thought it looked like the Joker, we have solid citation that he did in fact say that.
• we aren't fortune-tellers, ThuranX; we have no idea what will eventually emerge as truth. Until then, we note the coverage connecting the incident to the film, and be prepared to update, revise or remove the material once more information is made available.

Additionally (and with respect), your personal assessment of "barely related" is just that - your personal, uncitable assessment. As well, edit summaries, including polite ones, rather help matters, wheras empty or snarky ones do not. It is equally typical when reverting good faith material out to initiate discussion. That didn't happen here. And when prompted, I initiated it here.

(addressing comments missed in edit conflict) Further, Wikipedia doesn't rule out sources because they are in a foreign language, especially when there exist numerous web-tools to translate the foreign language link. While I freely admit that the testimony of witnesses is usually caca, we don't get to evaluate that - the media source is reliable, we are able to verify the statements, and we can - as I noted above - adjust accordingly if more information demonstrates that the event is unrelated to the portrayal in the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ECx3)The source material is rumors, unattributable rumors, which cite speculation that it might be connected. "fuelling speculation he was inspired by The Joker, the villainous character played by Heath Ledger in the latest Batman film." from [2]. The Dark Knight connection is in a dependent clause identifying the character for the uninformed, and not suggesting in any way that the murderer was drawing inspiration for the film version at all. "fuelling speculation he was inspired by the Joker - the villainous character played by Ledger in the latest Batman film. " from [3]. The EXACT same phrase. In other words, one wire report, published twice, doesn't make two sources. I note that at no point is it made clear WHO is doing the speculation, the police, in which case it may be relevant to the criminal's motive, or the journalists, looking to sensationalize and tie it in to another 'violent movies make violent people' debate in the media. if the former, I could accept it being mentioned here. But in absence of the former, it should be out.

In response to your numerous edits, no, we cannot verify the statements; there are no statements to make beyond 'someone' is speculating. Is that someone the lead investigator, the psychologist hired by the police, some journalist, or Arcayne on the news site's message boards? Article does not say. There's nothing to confirm, prove, or demonstrate from the scant 'evidence' provided. There's no rush to include this material, we aren't a news site, and we can sit back and see what comes of it. If the police conclude he was emulating Ledger's performance, we can include it. If they conclude he was emulating Alice Cooper, we have nothing to base inclusion here on. Finally, My edit summaries on this matter have been perfectly within community standards, so if you intend to continue with the personal attacks, expect a swift run to AN/I from me. I know you LOVE seeing me in trouble, so I've been careful to avoid any appearance of impropriety. ThuranX (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Last bit first: I wasn't referring to your edit summaries, ThuranX, which I believe weren't even part of the initial discussion. I am glad however that you are avoiding the "appearance of impropriety" (and, presumably, actual impropriety as well). The rest of the comments about me, I will simply ignore as sour grapes on your part. I took no joy in reporting an issue that had arisen, and neither gloat nor reflect upon it. This isn't the place for discussing this, which prompted my removing the bit reminding you of how you claimed that you avoid me; it wasn't on topic, and after this sentence, I won't be the one bringing it up again.

Moving on, while I think you make interesting points, I think we are viewing verifiability, reliability, notability and synthesis differently. You are evaluating the sourced, reliably-cited statements as "rumors, unattributable rumors, which cite speculation that it might be connected". Forgive me asking, but could I trouble you to point out the policy/guideline (that outweighs V and RS) defining yourself as an evaluative authority where news stories are concerned? While it might be the case that the connection is fleeting, your concern that it is such is represented by the current events template in place. As it currently exists, there are a number - beyond the few you chose to utilize for your argument - of citable sources that meet our criteria for inclusion. While they might be eventually be found to be the product of a slow news day, we don't crystal ball things here. You think it is unconnected, which is fine, as far as opinions go. Unfortunately, we cannot cite you as a source on reliability.

As I feel this discussion is poised to become circular, I am open to having the question of inclusion mediated. Please feel free to initiate mediation at this point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section for the reason given in my edit summary. I'm not sure that mediation is needed since you seem to be the only one in favor of keeping the material. You may just have to accept that consensus disagrees with you here. If I am wrong, obviously, others will restore the material or speak up here. Mike R (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Three editors (out of what, 10-11 who contribute regularly to the article) now constitute consensus. I appreciate your bold action, MikeR, but it seems more ken to not to remove cited info - it sets a bad precedent. I remain unconvinced that the heavily cited material should be removed; your own interpretation, as offered by your edit summary, should not be influenced by what lawyers say to spin the news. Formal denial by one's attorneys doesn't erase witness testimony. It can be an additive element, but not a subtractive one. That would be like removing the bit about Iran-Contra, because one of the accused claim they didn't do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) Any response to this from me would just be repeating what ThuranX said, only less eloquently. Perhaps an RfC to solicit more opinions? That sounds to me more appropriate than mediation at this point. Mike R (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with someone initiating an RfC. I will participate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

there is no heavy citation. Most of the stories talking about the Joker are sourced to the same wire report, and not one identifies any person. If you push it into the article, I will, absolutely, force a permanent tag on the allegations until a named individual is cited. I remind you that per BLP, any allegation about a person which is not fully substantiated must NOT be included. As the ONLY allegation that this is joker related is by the admission of all articles unfounded and speculative, it violates BLP. Further, we have a clear refutation of that early report by the suspect's lawyer. This means that without corroboration, the greater weight is on his side, and that material should be out. With that connection out, there's nothing tying this incident to this article. BLP is one of the top tier, most important policies at Wikipedia, and in all cases we're instructed to err on the side of caution. IF he's really 'the joker' inspired, it will appear in later, calmer news reports, and we can include it then. Until that time, it should be removed. ThuranX (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read the sources again, as they identify the person committing the attacks as resembling the Joker - a fairly rarified description. As the person charged in the attacks is named in the same articles that denote the Joker comparison - the source does that, and not us - BLP doesn't apply to the accused - we are citing a source that makes the comparison - we are not making it. (At first, I thought you were trying to apply BLP to Ledger or, bizarrely, the Joker - both of which aren't governed by BLP).

Additionally, read my reply again: just because the suspect's lawyers say the guy didn't do it doesn't neutralize the accusation. Were such the case, O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case would never have been created. There is no erring here on our part. We have all the corroboration we need as Wikipedia editors. Verification, not truth is the litmus for inclusion. The connection to the Ledger characterization is CFB, so it should remain in the article.

As BLP clearly doesn't apply here, do you have other WP policy objections regarding the inclusion of the material? Your characterization of the reports aside, I am still not hearing anything that actually refutes the inclusion of this material. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WHO identifies the personas resembling the joker? WHO? NO ONE. The reports note SPECULATION. Speculation by WHO? And BLP applies to everyone LIVING, included those accused of crimes. It applies here. ThuranX (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, incorrect. Re-read my earlier statement regarding OJ Simpson, as it would appear that you seem to have missed it.

Each other news stories noting the comparison is drawing it from police accounts from witnesses. Likely, they don't release the names of witnesses right away (just like the States in that way). The source of the news stories is the police agency - and last time I checked, we don't dismiss cops' statements, even if they are from Belgium. You might have missed that the information came from duly authorized law enforcement personnel in Belgium. Please feel free to look at the sources again. Maybe even perform your own net search - I've already done so, though.

And again, BLP is not on point, as has been stated earlier. We have performed our due diligence where BLP is concerned. Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research - all are required to be followed scrupulously in matters of BLP, and all have. Feel free to point out where any of our core policies have been violated in adding this information.

Additionally, from BLP::

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

As well, the non-public figure section of BLP seems to have been adhered to in this instance. The arrest for the crimes is in fact notable, and would be so even if they aren't guilt of the crime, as per the example of Richard Jewell. We aren't giving any more information than that which was released to the press. We aren't saying he is guilty. We aren't saying he is the Joker. We aren't even saying that the film drove him to do it. We are simply neutrally reiterating what reliable sources are stating. We aren't here to protect the Dark Knight film article, or the Joker article. Since comments of defense at one article discussion seems to have encouraged to following/commenting at the other, I submit that we back off the Mama Bear protectionism of the articles, and realize that while it is normal to be repelled by the addition of information of a heinous crime, it is connected (to repeat) by reliable and numerous sources.

Maybe we should pose the question at the BLP noticeboard? It seems a logical next step, but I won't automatically do that, so as to avoid accusations of forum-shopping. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've talked about the matter with a few others, and am going to see if there actually are BLP concerns that I don't see here. Therefore, I will be filing for additional, unbiased insight into the matter at the BLP noticeboard. The link can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely someone should mention that a significant amount of people think this movie is terrible?

I mean, there's a whole website dedicated to how bad it is (dark knight sucks - good site). That's not exactly the case with something like Wall-E, is it?

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.251.240 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Significant? You mean the six percent of critics on Rotten Tomatoes? I'd hardly call that significant. And so what? Anyone can make a website about anything. That hardly makes it noteworthy. faithless (^speak) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-functional reference link and incorrect data in the article

The entire final paragraph of the "Themes and analysis" section deserves to be completely removed. It only cites a single reference, which is not even functional, and quite frankly reeks of somebody promoting their own blog (and opinions) by infecting it into a popular article on wikipedia.

Also, the tarot card invoked is not really called "The Joker", but "The Fool", and bears no parallels whatsoever, much less "striking" ones, to either Lucifer or the Joker from Batman, aside from the superficial. I am therefore removing this short paragraph entirely, because its contents are beyond repair and quite frankly, irrelevant.

As a side note, is it just me, or is the portion of the Reception section devoted to Mr.Denby suspiciously disproportionate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.1.157 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Russel Crowe

Will you remember Russel Crowe in a film role in The Dark Knight's will was written. Did you wonder if that information can be added?--Olağan Şüpheli (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bale was making a joke. Alientraveller (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a lark. A call came to the agenda is a joke, but it is understood to mean information. If you're too small, remember you go.--Olağan Şüpheli (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

-edit; crap, it submitted twice. Sorry guys!-

Typo in the nominations table.

At one point it says 'Best Direcor' instead of 'Best Director'. Not much of a problem, but still, rather perfectly correct than mistakes. :)

Go ahead and fix it. Don't worry about bothering us with typos, you're free to edit :) The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for best Script in 2009 Nebula Awards

In 2009, writers Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, and David S. Goyer were nominated for a Nebula Award, along side Wall-E and Stargate Atlantis episode The Shrine. This should be added to the organization award table. The award is the "Nebula Award," the category is "Best Script," the winner/nominee is "Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer," and the result thus far is "Nominated." The award will be presented at the 2009 Nebula Awards® Weekend, April 24-26,2009 in Los Angeles, California. Alteran1 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we'll put that in once they're up :) The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :D Alteran1 (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what are you guys doing? You closed the option, to edit the Gross Revenue, for others. Than its your job to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.181.139 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

one trillion dollars

Is it true that the film grossed over one trillion dollars andif so oudnt that be some kind of record.72.27.124.66 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not true. It grossed about $1.001 billion, which still makes it the 4th highest-grossing film of all time. BOVINEBOY2008 03:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards split

I don't see any discussion, so I'll make it.

I think it should be split - it just doesn't look good to have a GA with so many lists, and in all honesty, this list could become an FL fairly easily with the right work on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I agree, the awards list length is long enough compared to the main body of the article that I think it merits a separate page, albeit there should be a link here pointing to it. Juranas (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I forgot to create a section after I added the tag. I was looking around at other movie articles that are featured, and those with a larger award sections had it split to separate page to avoid just a large table. So, yeah, I was thinking it should be split off as the current page is 126kb in size. (See WP:SIZE rule of thumb.) –  LATICS  talk  03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, because I commonly see this error used in coordination with WP:SIZE, but this page is only 46kb large. SIZE is based on "readable prose", which excludes tables, html coding, images, the infobox, external links (and IMO also the lead, because the lead is just the restatement of the article). I'm not saying the awards should be split or shouldn't be split, just that doing so because the page is "126kb" is not an accurate representation of a page that is recommended for splitting based on WP:SIZE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with splitting it up. There are several examples of this, and on this page all we need is a short paragraph iterating the most notable awards (which, there really are none, other than the fact that Ledger swept the Best Supporting Actor category the entire awards season, save for, if I remember correctly, the National Board of Review and the NYC Film Critics).I made the table way back in December, so I just don't want the table deleted all together. I've also been meaning to do some copy editing to the table but haven't gotten around to it. --HansTAR (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would probably remove it all and convert it to prose. It's terrible, if splitting it removes it from this article. It really is bad!  The Windler talk  09:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tech in the Dark Knight

Can someone add in a section like "Fictional technologies and concepts" as in the Ultraviolet film article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.127.222 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, re-editing this to give editors a headstart... rough notes, someone start this off, don't want to mess with the article itself... thought this would be added by now

Cape - flightsuits, memory fabrics (based on heat and magnetism), memory materials in general can be discussed

Batarang - Oriental throwing stars

Tumbler - mix between a humvee and a gallardo, basically a sleek sports car with armor. Independant engines. Batpod inside the tumbler, cars that can split into two (?). Also jet powered. There were a few jet powered cars around.

Batpod - the Dodge Tomahawk. Bare essential bike. Engines inside both the tires. Can go vertical at times. Ammunition/armor on the batpod. The seating position (no seats). Upper body used for steering as the wheels are broad.

Operation Skyhook - using a helium/hydrogen baloon with a cord attached to pick up units. Is it possible, and similiar tech in real life.

Bat Suit - Titanim reinforced kevlar. Triple weave on the armor platings (limbs, torso). Double weave everywhere else. Made of many small parts, like a midiveal suit of armour. Kevlar "weaves" can be explained. Also, ceramic based armors can be explained.

Batman's utility belt - also kevlar, with a small motor that can draw batman up at high speeds. there are some similiar gadgets used by the military and MIT students, but not as powerful as the one batman has in this film.

phone sonar - how this is not possible, the mics/speakers wont be able to resolve anything useful. A note on the actual phone models used can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.127.222 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

There will be a sequel for sure. Lee Smith is now in Bulgaria and a friend of mine who is working with him now told me that Lee told him there indeed will be a sequel. The only source I can give is a Bulgarian forum, but no one of you can read Bulgarian. It's on the begining of page 119 - http://artline-comics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3089&start=2340 --Batman tas (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that TDK is already a sequal to Batman Begins. So any "next movie" would technically be another sequal to the first, not this one. Furthermore, there's nothing to add to the article itself about a third movie in the series at this time making this talk thread unnecessary. Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that TDK is the sequel of BB. A third film, ofcourse, will be a sequel to BB, but why are you telling that it won't be a continuation to TDK? --Batman tas (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, no one knows. Bale has 2 Terminator sequels to do, and Nolan has already said he is not doing The Dark Knight 2 any tie in the next two years, which means that 2011 is the earliest anyone could start thinking about a sequel. Bare in mind Schumacher wanted to follow up Batman & Robin in 1999. Until the film rolls film then nothing will be added. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as said above, and in addition, forums are not credited as legitimate sources. Sorry, Batman tas. The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew that my information won't serve with nothing, but at least to inform you. Once Lee has told that there will be another sequel, so there will be another sequel. And I have already started to sharpen my teeth. --Batman tas (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Lee Smith from Adam, and put your teeth away. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, guys, exercise some maturity. Geez.... The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Bulgaria "to sharpen teeth" means that you don't have patience for something, for example - you can't wait until the next episode of "Lost". And what does "I don't know Lee Smith from Adam", I don't see any sense. Explain it more simple. --Batman tas (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What they mean is that they do know who "Lee Smith" is. So, if you say, "I don't know Lee Smith from Adam Smith", you mean that should someone put Lee Smith next to "Adam Smith", that person would not know which one was who.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, now it's clear. Darrenhusted, I have never said that you or anyone don't know Lee. I said that no one of you can't speak Bulgarian. --Batman tas (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. Well, maybe we can. :) I can't, I'm just saying... it's possbile. But still, we can't credit that source that you gave us. Thanks for informing us, and if the information you so happened to have given us came out to be true, we won't be using your source, but go ahead and have a party. Just a btw. The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Themes and Analysis section

Please fill this section in with more information. There is so much more scope for analysis, which has not been done. To start with, Batman's reluctance to use weapons, how batman's childhood was shown in this movie, and Batman's relationship with the CEO of wayne enterprises, his butler and Rachel. Also, the Joker, and Two-Face are spoken of in the same breath. The Joker can be delved into much deeper, with more explanation for the depiction of the Prisinor's dillema (no mention at all of the people in the process of making decisions). What feels dramatically left out is things like the prisinor throwing the remote overboard. This section has a lot of scope, and in fact, maybe the reason why a lot of people read this article at all, so those who can edit the page, please do edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.112.187 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

More needs to be said about Batman's constant self-sacrifice. Batman is not a hero. He is whatever Gotham needs him to be. At the end of the movie, Gotham needs him to be the fall guy for Dent. Unlike Superman, Batman is the dark warrior...the one who never gets credit for his heroic deeds...not as much as he should anyway. He made the hard choice of sacrificing his happiness both as Bruce and as Batman. Some sort of mention of this should be there. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone please say that he lost it

Hey i know that this page is protected and therefore i cannot edit it but can someone please say that he lost the batmobile and turned it into the batpod please in the plot section.--Simpaklimp (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to the overall plot. The plot needs to be concise and succinct, so we don't include minor details such as that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in the article about Batman's tech (can't remember what it's called) or on Batman's article itself. Not here, because it's a minor detail. Agree with the above. The Joker's Woman^{[BlackPearl14•contribs!]} 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: if Batman had kept the Batmobile through the whole movie, the story wouldn't be any different. Less exciting, but no different.Jacobking (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Action noir superhero film

What happened to our friend Bignole to not edit the title genre for "2008 superhero film", it seems that he has a problem with it being "2008 action film" but finds no problem when it is called "20008 action noir superhero film"? Well, will you edit it back to 2008 superhero film bignole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.188.206 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Marketing Materials

Hey y'all i was just reading this page and i noticed that there isn't any mention of the Marketing materials used such as the 3 Set PlayStation 3 Network Store Themes.

Theme 1 = Batman Theme 2 = The Joker Theme 3 = Harvey Dent

Each priced at $1.99

These Themes Change the look and feel of the PlayStation 3's XMB

It'd be cool if someone could add this to the Marketing Materials used to advertise them film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.199.99 (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot cleanup

I'm reading through this plot section, and it feels very sloppy. The facts are there, but the flow feels awkward. Am I alone on this point? Any objections if I try to do a prose overhaul?Jacobking (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading

"Following its critical and commercial success, The Dark Knight has gone to garner multiple awards ranging from Best Picture to Best Special Effects." When I hear "Best Picture", I definitely think of the Oscars. The sentence should be reworked to give examples of those giving out the awards or the part beginning from "ranging" should just be removed altogether. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The plot for this movie is incorrect......can someone please edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.150.63 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

The Dark Knight has gone to garner multiple awards ranging from Best Picture to Best Special Effects.

• Gone to garner? Sadly, that's been in the lead for a long time. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

him smashing the Bat-Signal

• Him? Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IMDB section

The 'Critical Reception' part of this article has a paragraph entirely about the supposed controversy this film caused on IMDB.com, where it (for a time) beat The Godfather to their 'no.1 of all time' position. Is it really necessary to say any more than that? I think this paragraph is essentially trivial information, interesting only to fans of imdb - it belongs on that article, not this one. All we should say here is 'the film was at one point no.1 on IMDB.com's top 250, it is now no.6'. Robofish (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Picture Deletion

I specifically deleted this sentence from the header because it is extremely misleading to readers. "Best Picture" is only used by the AMPAS, which presides over the Academy Awards. The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated for this award. The Golden Globes, BAFTAS, and other ceremonies all have unique awards given for their best motion picture of the year. Only the Oscars have the award, "Best Picture" and that is why I deleted the sentence. Users are free to add other Oscars the film won, but they shouldn't use these specific words. BalticPat22Pat 01:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dent's cases

It is mentioned several times throughout the film that if Dent is caught doing anything wrong (any crime, for instance), all of his convictions will be undone and the criminals will be released automatically. It is also briefly mentioned between Batman and Gordon just after Dent dies. I keep adding this, but it keeps getting deleted every time I do. Can somebody please tell me what's going on here? Jienum (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the plot and that consensus was reached a long time ago, that is why that addition is reverted. The cases are not the motivation, Dent's murders are. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

is it Fantasy?

Both this film and Batman Begins are listed in the list of Fantasy films but they are not in the Fantasy films category. So are they fantasy films or not? There's no magic or monsters but superheroes/vigilantes like Batman certainly don't exist in real life. 220.244.168.135 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe Batman doesn't exist in your city, but that doesn't mean superhero vigilantes don't exist. The police can't stop crime without a little help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.42.70 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely ambiguous. Sort of like Dick Tracy being a superhero. But, when you think about it, there isn't much that's fantastical about these films: maybe Dent's injuries because his Two-Face getup isn't anatomically accurate and medically he probably should have died. Other than that, it's no more fantasy than, say, The Bourne Ultimatum or Rambo. If anything, you can qualify it as sci-fi. The microwave emitter, psychoactive drugs and some of the technology Batman uses are pretty far-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.82.67 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexist wording?

Why is Harvey Dent referred to as "Dent" and Rachel Dawes as "Rachel"? A gx7 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a mistake, I suggest you fix it. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should watch the movie, Harvey Dent is usually called "Dent" by the other characters. So I guess whoever wrote the damn article was using whatever the movie had fed him/her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hqwerthqwert (talk • contribs)

Lau?

Was Lau kept in the warehouse with Joker and The Russian counting the $? And did he die in the flames? (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Lao, not Lau. Kids these days, you know? Dreaming up new spellings for words and names. L-A-O, it's just that easy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hqwerthqwert (talk • contribs)

Sorry I'm 21!. Jeez...don't be rude. (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Marketing

Hi, Can someone please add that PlayStation 3 had 3 Themes ( Batman, Joker, Harvey Dent ) for download for $1.99 each as did the Xbox 360 have 2 Free Themes and 1 Avatar Pack.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.230.139 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adresses

When Batman was interrogating the Joker about the locations about Harvey and Rachel, he said Dent was at "250 52nd Street" and that Rachel was at "Avenue X, at Cissero". Batman then says he is going for Rachel, so Gordon goes to get Harvey and calls all available units to "converge at 250 52nd Street". However, Batman is the one that goes to get Dent, not Gordon. Later in the film, Dent phones Gordon on top of a building and says that he has his family "where my family died". This would have though to have been the address where Rachel was, but it turns out to be where he was horrifically burned.

This suggests multiple things. Could Batman have intentionally killed Rachel because he knew they would never be together? Or was it just a error/inconsistency in the script? The Beatles Fan (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good discussion to have on a message forum somewhere. The pertinent fact- that the Joker apparently switched addresses - is already in the article. Xsmasher (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first theory is way out there, unless the sequel surprises us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.82.67 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

There is certainly a sequel coming in 2011 or so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2480975/Batman-sequel-to-The-Dark-Knight-Johnny-Depp-to-play-The-Riddler.html http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/03/17/christian-bale-talks-batman-3-sequel-to-the-dark-knight/--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, two points. First the year is not 2011, and second the sequel hasn't got a script, director or release date. Third, the first link is from July 2008, and the second from March 2008, we have already been through them. See WP:NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So there isn't a sequel? I'm not proposing a new article, it's just a proposition for information to be included in this article about the possibility of a sequel starring Johnny Depp as The Riddle.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What "information"? A rumour from last March? And a "possibility" of a sequel? This is an encyclopaedia, not a Batman fansite. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, forget it. Let's just wait for more accurate info to come up.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

■Be polite

■Assume good faith

■Be welcoming

Can't we apply this? Gnmng Jreck (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Apply in what sense? How about users read the archives? Or even WP:NFF? Darrenhusted (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

Is there any more information about the salaries of the cast? I only found that Heath ledger earned between 5-10 million dollars. Other than that, nothing. Is there anywhere more info?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Superhero movie?

Is this really a superhero movie? Isn't it more of a gang movie? This take on Batman isn't about a superhero, he's just a vigilante. Should we also consider The Brave One a superhero movie? Come on, guys. Raaggio 02:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely not a superhero movie, since Batman is in no way, shape, or form a superhero. You're probably facing an uphill battle to get this changed though. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd, then, that multiple images of Batman are used to illustrate the superhero article. To suggest that Batman is not a superhero is absurd. faithless (^speak) 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Superhero film, please list Batman's superhuman abilities. I'll hang up and listen. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Superhero film, superheroes "usually" possess superhuman powers. The man wears a cape, uses gadgets and drives a bad-ass car. Don't be thick. Ifnkovhg (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So in your explanation, 007, Transporter (film) and Mission Impossible II are superhero movies? This movie was beyond a "superhero" movie; there was nothing super about this. It was dark, twisted and tested the morals of everybody. Batman wasn't trying to save the people for no reason, just because of the greater good inside him... he had a vengeance to collect, he had a point. This movie was about the darkness inside everyone, including him. Even Christopher Nolan said that Batman is not a superhero like Superman, he said Batman was doing something different. To acknowledge the existence of superheroes in this movie changes what Batman was trying to accomplish.

In conclusion, Batman is not a superhero and not even comparable [sans the mask], so this shouldn't be considered a superhero movie. Raaggio 04:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Batman is considered a superhero (he's even listed in Category:DC Comics superheroes), and this movie is about Batman. Hence, it's a superhero film. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Dark Knight is most certainly a superhero film. It stars Batman, who despite not having any supernatural abilites, is still considered a superhero. He is a DC Comic character and anyone who doesn't consider him a superhero, probably isn't aware of his comic book character status, which has been around since 1939! BalticPat22Pat 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an action movie. Rolaye With Cheese (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

First, things can be in more than one genre so being a super-hero movie is not mutually exclusive to gang or action movies as some people seem to think. Second, Batman himself is a "superhero" there's no denying this. He's an iconic DC comics character. Therefore, a movie about Batman is inherently a super-hero movie. Finally, to call it purely a gang film is absurd, equally so to say just because Batman doesn't have any powers. No offense, as realistic as Nolan's style for the film is many, many, MANY things in the film are an exaggeration of reality just not possible. Not to mention the whole format of hero, villain and the films storyline is filled with superhero archetypes, imagery, and motifs (so even academically its a super-hero movie). Super-hero movie is a genre.

I don't know if you somehow see the classification as a super-hero movie as some form of stigma, and you're trying to raise the film above that but that's your own internal neurosis. Get over it! It's a super-hero movie.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Poster

Does anyone know the significance of the image that appears on the poster (Batman standing in front of a building with the bat-symbol burned onto it)? It's not from the movie. Was it a deleted scene or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Hirose (talk • contribs)

It was just a poster. And this is not the place. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DVD sales

it has also grossed $222,184,086 in dvd sales if you could add that to the gross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.68.150 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dvd sales have nothing to do with the box office gross of a film (hence the words "box office gross"). They are two completely different figures and aren't counted as one statistic by any organization. BalticPat22Pat 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was the UK removed from the country section?

There seems to be no explanation as to why it was removed, can some one please clarify why.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess because it was shot in Chicago and Hong Kong, neither of which are in the UK. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's incorrect, while there was shooting in Chicago and Hong Kong, a good portion was shot in the streets of London; with street signs and road paint to make it look like an American street. There's a mention of a stunt being done in Surrey, and "Pinewood Studios, near London, was the primary studio space used for the production.[78]" - what more do you need?. That fact is listed in this very article if you wish to verify that (and just out of interest, so Hong Kong IS in America? Because Hong Kong isn't listed as a country either). While I agree that the US is obviously the primary country, personally I think an English director, filming locations in and around London and a largely British cast is enough for the UK to be listed fairly as a secondary country. It's only American patriotism that is preventing this.

Resources to use

I listed resources to use at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Resources. Feel free to use them to improve the article further. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Action movie?

Dr Wikipedia describes an “action movie” as “a film genre wherein the story is largely told through physical action as opposed to dialog”. So right off the bat, we get a wrench in the works. No one who did not undergo a botched lobotomy in Mexico could argue that TDK lacked dialog. Some people can even make the case that there was too much exposition in the Nolan flick, with characters explaining their actions and the plot at every turn.

Continuin with the definition, we read that in an action movie, “The action typically involves individual efforts on the part of the hero”. And while it is true we did see a lot of ass kicking on Batman’s part in TDK, the story itself was not trully about him. It was as much about the Joker, Harvey Dent, Gordon, Rachel, Gotham, the volatile nature of human beings, the nature of madness and heroism as it was about Batsy. And what action scenes there were… there really wasn’t that many of those. I know, cause I timed them. Using VLC on super speed up, I timed all the supposedly action scenes in TDK. There weren’t that many of them.

I have counted a lot of scenes in TDK as “action” scenes to be fair. I even counted scenes that hardly constitute as action. I even included dialouge during the action scenes to be fair. And here it is. And remember, I was very generous:

---

Prologue: 5min28s Garage fight: 1m47s, 1 explosion (Tumbler) Pencil trick: 5 seconds Hong Kong fight: 3m29s, 1 explosion Judge car explosion: 5 seconds Bale disarms clown: 5 seconds Penthouse fight: 1m2s Joker shoots mayor: 10 seconds Club: 30s Highway chase: 7m1s, 4 explosions (bazooka, Tumbler, car, helicopter) + 1 truck flip Interrogation: 1m42s Bomb in MCU: 50 seconds, 1 explosion Dent and Rachel: 1m10s, 2 explosions Car crash: 25 seconds Explosion of hospital 1m Maroni car crash: 10 seconds Building fight: 5m8s You know how I got these scars?+Fall: 20s Batman jumps on Dent: 23s Final chase: 46s

---

All in all, 20 action scenes took 31 minutes 36 seconds. 32 minutes of action, leaving more than 2 hours of pure dialog, character exposition and all that other non-explosiony stuff people get so bored with.

If you want to get more mathematical on it, the action scenes in TDK took about 22% of the movie, and each scene lasted an average of 1.6 minutes, which hardly makes TDK an action movie. It definitely had action elements to it, but an action movie it was not.

So what exactly was TDK? What genre was it? I think what best describes Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is super hero crime drama. Yeah, that works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.245.188 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

the curse

should we make a section about the Dark night curse. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ArtistScientist (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It would be OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the "Dark Knight curse"??? --75.179.182.98 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Small talk. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the most overrated movie ever?

While i was a big fan of the first film and was really eager to see this one, i think that sadly if it wasn't for Heath Ledger's death (R.I.P) TDK would not have made the huge impact on the box office that it did. Sure the Joker stole the movie,sure his performance is incredible,sure it was masterfully directed and brilliantly acted,but it didn't deserve all the praise it got,and coming in with a big hype surronding it didn't help either.An action film?NO. A Crime drama? Maybe. A superhero movie?Not really ( considering it's based on a comic book). So how is TDK defined?(Christopher Nolan claimed in an interview in Empire magazine that it's like heat,with a clown running in every now and then.) Othman84 ( 05/09/09)

Heat is considered an action-crime-drama. Since the film theoretically revolves around Batman, the superhero genre generally trumps that. Superhero-action-crime-drama is a bit much. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use discussion pages as a forum. And no, it's not overrated. --Iron Chef (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB Top 250 claims

"For seven years, IMDb's Top 250 Movies of All-Time (a list of the top movies based on user ratings on a scale of 1 to 10) had The Shawshank Redemption ranked number one and The Godfather ranked number two. On July 19, 2008, The Dark Knight dethroned The Shawshank Redemption from that number one position,[151] however it subsequently slipped back down the rankings."

This isn't true. The Godfather held the No. 1 position for many many years, and the Shawshank Redemption overtook it near the time The Dark Knight was released. I'm deleting the first sentence of this small paragraph until somebody has the proof from IMDB. Fdssdf 07:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, "The Godfather" was number 1 on IMDB and "The Shawshank Redemption" was number 2, then "The Dark Knight" took the number 1 spot and "The Godfather" dropped to number 3 while "The Shawshank Redemption" remained at number 2. Then "The Dark Knight" dropped and "The Shawshank Redemption" moved up to number 1 and "The Godfather" moved up to number 2. That's how it actually happened. I remember distinctly that is exactly how it happened, I had watched that list very closely for years before "The Dark Knight" and even more closely during "The Dark Knight"'s run in the cinema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.196.164 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight — I think this is the clear primary topic, and as such should be at the non-disambiguated title. "The Dark Knight" is an alternative name for Batman, but I think a very large majority of readers using that search term are looking for the film rather than one of the other meanings. Interestingly, the dark knight redirects here, but The Dark Knight points to the disambiguation page. One of them should probably be corrected even if there's no consensus for this move. Jafeluv (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fix the redirects and naming conventions say that this should be The Dark Knight (film), and the comic was out for years before the film. Also, you don't know what users are looking for, the disambiguation page gets a few hundred hits a day. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But we do know what users are looking for. This article gets 330k page views a month – compare with 21k views for The Dark Knight (video game), 6,7k views for The Dark Knight (soundtrack), and less for the other titles on the dab page. The only competing title is Batman, but as I said I don't think "the dark knight" is such a common search term for the Batman article. The naming conventions say that if there is a primary topic for an ambiguous term, that article should be at the non-disambiguated title. Jafeluv (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM and the primary usage is obviously Batman, the character. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The redirect the dark knight should point to the same point as The Dark Knight. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've retargeted it to the disambiguation page for now. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per the naming conventions. The film is the film and should be called that. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Firstly, I'm going to have to admit I can't understand the stance adopted by those users who oppose the move. The film's title is "The Dark Knight", not "The Dark Knight (film)", as Darrenhusted seems to suggest. Secondly, I don't see the point of citing recentism as a reason for not moving this article, given that it is easily the most notable thing of this name, and will remain so, as a highly profitable major Holywood release. Users of Wikipedia typying "the dark knight" into the search box will almost certainly all be looking for this page, the only meaningful target destination, as users looking for Batman would obviously just type in "batman", rather than this article's title. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure what's so confusing about the disambig and naming rules. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation rules on Wikipedia allow for the disambiguation page to be located at Subject (disambiguation) if there is a primary purpose which should inhabit the main Subject page, which in this case there is. If you look at the Dark Knight disambiguation page, you'll see that the film is evidently the primary article of that name. Personally I se the best option as this article at The Dark Knight , Dark Knight redirect here, with the disambiguation page at Dark Knight (disambguation).YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral pending other editors' arguments. While the film article is clearly the most popular and has some credibility as a primary topic, "The Dark Knight" is a preexisting moniker for Batman that has been applied to several other topics, both before the film and in relation to the film. I do not see the film as heads and shoulders above all other topics, especially when most are Batman-related. Having The Dark Knight as the disambiguation page is not a major issue for me, but I'd be open to hearing counterpoints. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Although the "Dark Knight" has been (and still is) an alternate name for Batman, it refers to "Dark Night". "The Dark Knight" with the definite article refers to this film. I would suggest having the film article located at "The Dark Knight" and "Dark Knight" redirect to "Dark Knight (disambiguation)". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "Dark Knight" refers primarily to Batman, or more specifically, to the Batman work of Frank Miller. The film is simply an adaptation of that which came decades later. Making the film the primary use of the term seems like putting the cart before the horse. It should either go directly to Batman, Frank Miller's Dark Knight continuity, or a disambiguation page. Nightscream (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If you make the primary topic the film, a disambiguation page will still have to be noted. That the film is the primary topic is widely debatable and there seems no reason to make this change. Listings at a disambiguation page makes it all the simpler to see what else it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Given the fact that TDK was one of our Top 50 viewed articles, it seems clear what visitors are looking for. I symphatize with the arguments that this is not a distinct primary topic, but I still think having the film as a primary topic with a hatnote will annoy less viewers who are not familiar with our disambiguation conventions, and are confused by them. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two records broken =P

New Moon has broken two records previously held by Dark Knight so I've updated the article.Mo HH92 ^Talk 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted you, first day reports are notoriously inaccurate. Wait until Monday. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burst the bubble but Box Office Mojo has conformed this. =PMo HH92 ^Talk 10:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC

Sorry to burst the bubble again but the midnight record was first broken by Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, not by New Moon. =D Chen19711 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble but stop treating this talk page like a forum. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were useful contributions/changes made from each of the comments. This discussion was merely a notice for each and reasoning behind them, as it should be. Maybe the tone should have been a little different, but no, no one's treating this page as a forum, so please do not start pointless arguments by saying so. Read the article. Chen19711 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime Thriller??

Isn't it an action film? 201.43.152.100 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dark Knight has been overthrown by "Avatar", and has dropped to 5th place of films that have earned more than $1 billion (worldwide)

Someone has to reword this line: "It is also the fourth highest grossing film worldwide, and only the fourth film to earn more than $1 billion, worldwide." http://www.hollywood.com/boxoffice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.52.55 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole section should be rewriten.

IMDb (again)

Per Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Critical_response... we avoid IMDb ratings/rankings as their prone to systematic skew. We've gone thru the issue:

• Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_10#IMDB
• Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_10#this_is_bs.2C_imdb_should_be_included
• Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_10#CRITICAL_RECEPTION_has_to_include_IMBD (this is the a lengthy discussion against said ratings/rankings)

User:Darrenhusted argues that the ratings are different from the rankings; but at the end of the day... said rankings are derived from the ratings. (i.e., you can't be ranked #1 on IMDb with a 2.3 rating) Also, all past discussions above have mentioned both rankings and rating interchangeably. The film's critical legacy is already well-documened sans IMDb... so their inclusion is also superfluous at best. --Madchester (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting Blu-Ray ranking from other country

Found some data on how much the movie made in Japan for Blu-Ray discs. Is it okay to add it here?

Here's the link BTW. [4] Ominae (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fix/rewrite the negative reception part

I have an issue with the part mentioned above, the article says "A minority of reviewers expressed views that the film might be vastly overrated and subjected to "incredible, ridiculous amount of hype"...". It kind of sounds like that minority is mediocre or something like that. I personally didn't like the film at all and also believe it was only successful because of Ledger's "tragic" death, but if you're wondering, nope, I'm not trolling and this is not part of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT thingy. I just believe it can/should be changed to something like "Despite all the praise it received, some reviewers/critics expressed..." or whatever thing that doesn't make it look like people who didn't like it are weird. --Exrain (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in question. The sources used to cite the various viewpoints were unreliable. Erik (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

I think this article should be featured but don't know how to nominate, could anyone do that? I think it is very well redacted. Exrain (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but be prepared to possibly spend a lot of time on the article for it reach FA status.  :) —Mike Allen 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been done (I think). Exrain (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Typically you only nominate something for FAC if either you are the main writer of the article, or you've consulted with the main writers, gotten their permission, and gotten their assurance that they'll work on the article during FAC. A FAC is a lot of work (you have to respond do, and deal with, a lot of peoples' comments and suggestions); you can't just nominate it and sit back, and you can't really do the FAC if you're not very familiar with the text. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

...and SandyGeorgia removed it. If it was not removed, I would've probably opposed anyway on the incomplete sentences used in Cast (it might be typical writing for movies, but it's not English), the jumble of date formats in the citations (like Highlander, there can be only one) and the presence of tiny sections (like the one for the anime tie-in). I would deal with those first—at least drop in a fuller summary for the anime. --an odd name 12:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not change the genre into crime action or action crime instead of crime thriller? since the movie considered more action than thriller. That's just a suggestion, 201.42.212.103 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the broad definition in the Thriller (genre) article, The Dark Knight would definitely be considered a thriller. I don't think genre listings of a film should be exhaustive; genre listings should be as short as possible. The current genre "epic superhero thriller" is properly descriptive and not excessively long. - Matt (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.143.222.30, 30 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the Sequel section, please list the release date for 'Batman 3' as July 20, 2012.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/04/batman-3-release-date-set-for-2012.html

74.143.222.30 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Done with a more reliable source (Associated Press via Minneapolis Star-Tribune) Xenon54 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction to Ferry Outcome

When the prisoner on the ferry is holding the trigger, he throws it out of the window into the river, not into an air vent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aokwh (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange opening paragraph

There is a great deal of badly written information in the first; in turn making the rest of the article sound absurd. The Joker robs a mob bank and ultimately kills himself. WHAT??? I know this is easily fixed in theory, yet I just cannot do it. It kind of degrades the article, someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfreely555 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC).