Talk:The Dark Knight

Voted Movie of the year by Empire

Empire magazine listed The Dark Knight as their movie of the year.

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)

Plot Summary missing numerous important themes

I think it needs a more detailed summary, as this one is barely a bare-bones look at the movie. It never mentions the police corruption, which is arguably the biggest theme in the movie (it fits in with corruption). One area it can be improved on is where Dent is let out of the hospital.

"The Joker goes to the hospital and convinces Dent to exact revenge on the corrupt cops and mobsters responsible for Rachel's death, as well as Batman and Gordon.

After sparing the Joker, Dent goes on a personal vendetta confronting Maroni and the corrupt cops one by one, deciding their fates with the flip of a coin."

The Joker doesn't convince Dent to exact revenge, he convinces him that the police are the ones who did this to him. He plays on his earlier anger over police corruption. He also convinces him that chaos is better than order, because chaos is fair. This plays in with Dent's coin, which used to be one sided but has two since it was burned. The coin is completely fair now. The coin flip is how he decides who to kill, and he doesn't kill the Joker because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries aren't meant to retell the entire story. They exist to give context to the rest of the article, and that's that. As for themes, you'd need citations, not just your opinions about what the major themes are. ThuranX (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well what good is a wrong plot summary? We can summarize this movie as The Joker is evil and everyone else is good and Batman wins, but that would not be an accurate plot summary now would it? I've seen more in-depth summaries on Wikipedia, and this is supposed to be THE movie of 2008. So why give it a wrong and short summary? I hardly think it is retelling the story, more like providing more insight. And you want me to need citations and not opinions? Watch the movie, that's my citation. I don't see a citation ANYWHERE on that plot summary, but suddenly I can't mention police corruption? What are you doing even checking the talk page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to need citations, I don't care what you need or want. The article, however ,would need citations, to expand on the themes. After that, the corruption could be more emphasized in the plot section. However, the police corruption is a small part of the film, more of a plot vehicle than a major theme, only appearing when the plot needed to move, be it getting the mob out of trouble so batman could go to hong kong, or positioning the hostages. Both could've been done in other ways. Bring us articles and citation, and we can help you shape your ideas. ThuranX (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this article's summary does not need any citations, so why do the themes need citations? Answer that one. The police corruption is a SMALL part of the film? You are this article's watch dog, and you are calling the police corruption a SMALL part? It's only one of the two reasons The Joker can wreck the havoc he does. That's how Harvey Dent is captured, how Rachel is killed, how Barbara at the end is captured. How The Joker gets the hospital threat to work. I mean there's so many examples, it's a MAJOR PLOT THEME. You can't deny that without being a "This is MY article, I REFUSE to accept any suggestions on how to improve it" Wikipeida Archetype. And, aren't the things that move the plot the, you know, important parts of the movie? What movie doesn't have a plot that moves? You are making no sense. Look dude, if you just want to say "This is my article go away I won't allow any changes" then do so, but making up these lame excuses is pathetic. You still won't admit that the summary is WRONG. Unless you downloaded some bootleg version of Batman.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk • contribs)

First, register an account. Second, at no point have I asserted ownership. Third, themes are real world content, and need citations. Themes are the bigger ideas integral to the story that the writer tells. To address them in the article, you'd need citations. The plot summary only exists to give a framework on which to build the real world content, it's primary purpose is NOT to retell the entire story. Plot summaries are limited in length by multiple Wikipedia guidelines and essays to avoid exactly that. In order to validate the massive expansion you posit, you'd need to be clear about the theme you seek to incorporate into the article. After that, you could see about expanding the plot to accommodate the reader's understanding of the new theme. Thank you for your understanding. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(personal attacks redacted)

One length that we're going to is that an administrator (hi!) is going to come in and remind everyone involved that a) we don't comment on contributors, we comment on the content and we stay civil in those comments, which wasn't the case in the comment I've just removed, and b) we do in fact need citations and should have a lot more than there are in this article at present. Plot summaries really should be cited more than they are; ThuranX makes a good point that it needs to be backed up by guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Persist in the personal attacks and I'll seek a block of your IP. I addressed the real issues above. Your failure to understand them is not my problem. I've explained to you how this article, and many on Wikipedia are written. I really do not understand why, instead of listening to what I've said and doing some research, you're insistent on just having your way, despite the fact that 'your way' would contravene some of the basic guidelines and principle of Wikipedia, as well as the consensus on this article. The plot summary, by the way is right. You feel it omits details that you, on a personal level, want to see included. That's not 'wrong', the word for that, at best, is 'incomplete'. All that stuff about fairness and the coin is what you took away from the story, not what the writers put in, unless you can find proof the writers put it in.

Writing for Wikipedia is more like writing a research paper than blogging or an internet forum. If you cannot cite it, you cannot include it. Perhaps it's simply that you are unfamiliar with that style of writing. I suggest you head over to the Help Desk and look around there for more on how to write an article. That might help.

As for my 'post changing', I haven't edited any of my comments here in a revisionist manner, and the thrust of my responses changed because you immediately became a hostile jackass, yelling at me that we're all 'wrong' and only you know the truth. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is his article. I came here to try and fix it, and I got attacked by him. He said I needed citations to make changes to it. I told him there weren't any. So why isn't the existing, WRONG information removed? Why isn't someone here trying to fix it? Why am I being told I'm wrong when I'm the only one pointing out that this citation-lacking article needs work? And where is your reprimanding of him? Just because he ran to get you doesn't mean he gets off scott free. This whole thing happened because of him. The personal attacks I made on him are justified. --- As for the message above that appeared mid-typing, read what I wrote above for parts of it. The line about fairness is IN the movie dude, you seriously haven't seen it have you? I can't argue with you. You refuse to believe anything, yet defend a citationless article. It's complete hypocrisy. I was going to stop trying to talk to you before you removed my "personal attacks". This whole nonsense over my lack of citations is a moot point considering this article lacks citations as well. It's like you are free to add citation-less material, but I am not. And how else can I see it? That is what is going on. And you don't CARE to add something about the themes. I posted my talk post to get people talking about adding and changing stuff in the article, and all that happened was YOU attacked ME. Thats why I put it here, in the talk page, to TALK. Not editing the article blindly. You could try and be nicer. You could try and be a lot nicer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk • contribs)

Let me clarify something. I have had no contact with ThuranX - I saw this while doing recent changes patrol and came in on my own hook. Second, if you feel that personal attacks are justified at any time on Wikipedia, you're on the wrong website. No personal attacks is one of the core policies on Wikipedia. My note above was directed at both of you, asking that you both calm down and discuss the topic more constructively. I highly suggest that you find references for your viewpoints, and ThuranX, I suggest that you find some for the existing material, and that the tone on this talk page become far less combative immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to discuss this topic. I can see how No Personal Attacks is a rule, but in my view he attacked me immediately. There may be no profanity, but it was not helpful and extremely rude. So why limit Personal Attacks to just curse words? I chose my words carefully as well. And I doubt I'm on the wrong website, as I followed the rules of coming to the talk page with material I wanted to discuss and not editing the page blindly. The people who keep watch over the page are the ones who aren't following the rules, as we've already established its lack of citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you feel your comments have been subject to personal attack. ThuranX's first reply to you was completely civil, and it was only after your somewhat antagonised reply to that comment that this degenerated into what we see now. However, I can see how you felt that your ideas were dismissed out of hand, and perhaps a more in-depth reply to you at the start would have avoided all that. In Wikipedia film articles, it is generally accepted that the plot summary should be a bare bones description of the plot, enough to only give readers enough context to understand the rest of the article. This is for quite practical reasons. For a start, were the plot section to include every perceived theme that The Dark Knight explored, it would become quite bloated, and only serve to obscure the basic contextual information that it is supposed to present. For another, there is Wikipedia's policy on original research. In the context of a film article, this prevents editors from presenting their own theories and analyses of the film. What seems "obvious" to one editor is plain wrong to another. That is why for this kind of thing, citations to a reliable secondary source are required for most additions to Wikipedia. Primary sources (in this case, the film itself) are allowed for basic descriptions, as long as no editor interpretation is involved (for example, you can say that "Character X shoots Character Y", but not "Character X feels betrayed and somewhat aroused by Character Y's actions, and so shoots him" without a citation or direct reference in the film that this is why it happened). With that in mind, we generally keep the plot sections concise, creating a separate section on the themes if necessary. As an example, take a look at what I did at Changeling (film), which presents its sub 700-word plot summary, with its "Themes" section later on. Again, due to the policy on original research, this section must only contain interpretations from reliable secondary sources, no matter how obvious some of it must seem to you or me. For a film such as The Dark Knight, which has generated so much comment and analysis in hundreds of such sources, this should not prove a barrier. I hope this explanation has helped. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, can I have some help in the themes section of The Dark Knight before I am dismissed as a citationless fool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been nothing but formal and constructive throughout, and resent the insinuation that I'm provoking all this, Tony. As for the existing article, with 203 unique sources and at a glance, about 300 points of citation, this is hardly an uncited article. The anonymous IP is free to add Citation tags where they feel a controversial statement is unsupported, but it hardly falls to me to be the mop and bucket crew at the same time I'm trying to explain all of wikipedia's polices to someone who wants to add their own opinion and synthesis to the article. ThuranX (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You have lied, not cared about this, and been spewing random things to get me to go away. You have not even tried to be helpful and just been filibustering your way to get rid of me. How have you been formal OR constructive? You've provoked this from the start. And you know that "anonymous IP", while being what I am, (though hardly able to understand how an IP address also makes me anonymous) is an insulting term on Wikipedia, and people who do not log in are looked down on. So there goes your claim at being formal, just two sentences after it. Now, the plot, I do not know how to fix. I cannot for the life of me think of a reliable source that can explain the plot. It's just there. Like, how am I supposed to cite that to your satisfaction? I watched it. "The Joker goes to the hospital and convinces Dent to exact revenge on the corrupt cops and mobsters responsible for Rachel's death, as well as Batman and Gordon. After sparing the Joker," This is just a lie. It is misleading the reader. It's not what what happens. This plot summary makes Two Face a different character at a pivotal part of the movie. This is WHERE Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face. This should be something that we, as The Dark Knight fans, feel is one of the movie's climaxes. Harvey turns his face and you see what he has become. And you are content to lie to make it fit into a sentence? Does no one else feel that explaining what happens here is important? Sure it's a summary, but it's also one of the most important parts of the movie, and I don't need citations to prove that. Look, I did not come here trying to cause a fight. I simply wanted to see the reactions people give to editing the article in two ways - the plot summary, and themes. And all you have done is say "NO.", "NO." and "GO AWAY WITHOUT CITATIONS." That is not constructive, or formal.

But none of that matters. I'm not here to fight, or am I interested in preserving your ego. It seems apparent that the Plot Summary will stay the way it is for the sake of length and conciseness, but no one can just dropkick my Themes idea out of the realm of discussion. I think this movie does have themes, and that an encyclopedia entry on it should cover them. So let's stop fighting, or throwing around who did whats, and focus on improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Size Matters!

Kia Ora, I would like to suggest a general prune of the article:

• Creating a Cast & Characters Main Article with the current descriptions / information, and changing to a simple cast list in current article
• Creating an Awards / Critical Reception Main Article that features the current table (nice table btw), and the expansive Critical section, while including a smaller sample of reviews & awards in current article

At last check, the article is currently 119kb, as compared to The Godfather (57kb), & Shawshank Redemption (I think roughly 25kb?). Seeing as there has been a bit of disagreement and hot temper in the discussion page (and noting the protection status), would like to see a consensus before undertaking. Also open to suggestions. Cheers Nait2k4 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the sectioning you propose match what's seen in the articles you reference, and are they FA-level articles? If so, I'd support your suggestions. I do wonder if those sections alone would be enough to reduce this article to the more accepted 40K suggestion? ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar sectioning in both articles, more concise. Neither page splits the article at these points, but I am reluctant to suggest mass information deletion (especially when it is so well referenced). Neither article is Featured-status (AFAIK), but am happy to look at any FAs you can think of that would work as a template. Cheers Nait2k4 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT - 300 (film) & Blade Runner have been featured and currently run about 75k, but again, much less in the way of Critic/Cast extrapolation.

(ec) I don't think splitting the article into different sections is a good idea (right now). The critical reception definitely needs to be cut down (which about 100 users have said but no one has actually bothered to do it), and creating subpages would create too many problems. I say just leave it, and reconsider this in a few months (or weeks). Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is only 51kb long (readable prose, per WP:SIZE measurement...and I didn't even remove all that I was supposed to remove to determine that number). I.E. It does not need to be split at all. The Critical Reception section needs serious pruning, and that's about it. Nothing needs to be split (SIZE does not even propose that one should split an article until 60kb, and even then it says that readability might warrant a longer article). I would oppose any suggestion of splitting at this time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. That's my mistake. I apologize, I didn't inquire about the numbers presented above. If it's 51K actual reading length, then I don't see a reason to change the structure. Thanks to Bignole for providing that all-important qualification. mea Culpa.ThuranX (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool Bananas. I shudder everytime I think about editing Critical Reception, will try to give it a whack over xmas. Thanks for the feedback! :) Nait2k4 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, to be honest. What bloated the section was the extended commentary related to Klavan's remarks. This is more analysis than a standard review, so I've separated the cites related to this into a separate sub-section. Properly expanded, this can form the basis of a fully-fledged standalone "Themes" section at some point. I've made some other tweaks, and as it stands now, I don't think the section is as daunting as it was a moment ago. Comments and suggestions welcome. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks for taking that on, Steve!ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice in the page history that Alientraveller had already cut out most of the dead wood from the section. I just swept up the leaves. :~) Steve ^{T • C} 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)