Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Joey King confirmed as Young Talia al Ghul

<a href="http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MovieMaster/news/?a=53081" rel="nofollow">Link text</a>

THe Variety source, which is more reliable, states that her role has not been identified. So, at the moment it's just speculation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty other sources in which she herself confirms that she is playing a juvenile Talia al Ghul. It is not speculation anymore and it should be kept on the DKR page. Osh33m (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of sources or plenty of sources citing the one unreliable source where she said that? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure of the reliability of the source in question, though there does seem to be at least some resemblance of an editorial staff. I think in cases like this its best to err on the side of caution. Either a more recognizable source will come along or the film itself will divulge the truth. Remember Wikipedia is not the news.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Add The Nationality Of Film

Please Add American Film To It Because This Is An American Studio Produced Film By An American-british Director And Batman Is The Symbol Of American Culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the nationality was removed because someone felt that it was an American and British film due to there being collaborators from either or both countries. --Boycool (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This An American Studio Warner Brother Film By An American british Filmmaker Shot In America With American Crew So Please ADD American Film Before It's Genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The nationality is disputed and when it is disputed, it isn't added. Simples. Also Superman is the symbol of American culture, Batman is just more popular. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Where is this rule? We need to take a vote. You can't just make up things as you go. I propose a vote on this matter. --DavisJune (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although I don't care much what the "heritage" of this film is, I do believe it is an American film.129.49.7.126 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Vote for Nationality of Film

There is too much confusion on the issue of the word "American" being added to the intro of this article. I propose a vote to settle all issues. Until the vote is made, the word "American" should be left in the article as it was there originally. --DavisJune (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't vote it American anymore than you can vote it German. It either is or it isn't, and it isn't provable or it would be already there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one am generally against the use of nationality in films unless it's completely unequivocal. This film is a joint English-American production, with Welsh and English stars and a writer/director whose nationality is similarly split between England and America. It's not solely American and should not be referred to as such. GRAPPLE X 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DavisJune, I admire your patriotism. But even as an American, I agree that there are too many non-American cast and crew members on this film to say that it is exclusively American without a source where Nolan or someone specifically calls it an American film. Please, let it go. --Boycool (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality is based on primary production, it has nothing to do with cast or directors. Primary production is done by WB. This will be taken to a vote. --DavisJune (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if that were so, production is a joint venture between the American Legendary Pictures and the English Syncopy Pictures. Warner Brothers merely distribute the film. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Darkwarriorblake has continually been engaging in edit warring. He's vandalizing the page and I believe he should be blocked --DavisJune (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Davis, you make me smile. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Democracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, or else there wouldn't be so much censorship. The facts are that this is an American film. To attempt to hide that is just ridiculous. One person can not make decisions for all. --DavisJune (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are 4 people making a consensus, the only person deciding for all here is you Davis. I said up above that one of the studios involved is British, Percentage of involvement doesn't decree nationality and we have nothing that says how involved either company is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consistency on wikipedia, therefore there needs to be a vote taken on this issue. Darkwarriorblake, edit warring will not help your cause --DavisJune (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Right here, right now, Davis, count the votes that have already been cast in this section and tell me what they are. Go. I'll wait. GRAPPLE X 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, another vote to remove "American" from the lead. Barry Wom (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• if y'all want this article full protected keep on on your current track. Stop editing the article and find your consensus here. DavisJune, stop templating editors for disruptive editing when there is none. Tiderolls 03:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Tide rolls, you should be ashamed. You're acting as a common tyrant. Wikipedia is not written by the people but written by the cliquish few. Your behavior is abhorrent. Also, this issue needs to be debated for a few days. Not rushed to a decision so that you (tide rolls) can feel more powerful. This is not the dream that wales had intended. --DavisJune (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you're having trouble counting past one, then. GRAPPLE X 03:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Common tyrant...that's a new one, I'll add it to my collection. Now discuss the issue and see if a consensus can be found. Tiderolls 03:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, now the US Military is going to invade Wikipedia to capture Tide Rolls and his sweet, sweet oil. A general consensus was reached, Davis has refused to acknowledge it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There's something unsettlingly sexual about that "sweet, sweet oil" bit. GRAPPLE X 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Paging Dr Freud. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be civil then you should not be on here. Tide rolls, there is absolutely no reason for you to repeat what I've just stated. If you are not going to add anything constructive than you need not post. I, not you, have already called for discussion. This discussion is meant to last a few days. Please do not go about repeating others. It simply confuses readers --DavisJune (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DavisJune's at nine reverts already, and leaving bad faith warnings on the pages of anyone who disagrees with him - can someone please block him and end this? He's already caused this page to be locked down with his edit-warring... MikeWazowski (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling for discussion is not a license to edit war, DavisJune. If you continue to post off-topic commentary I would more than likely construe that as disruptive. Please discuss the matter at hand. Tiderolls 03:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot accuse someone of vandalism simply because you do not agree with what the say. It is Darkwarrior who is harassing me and engaging in a edit war. Unfortunately, Tide Rolls, is highly inefficient and also insist on joining in these attacks. His behavior is abhorrent. What difference does it make if the page is locked down when only a few a can edit anyways?--DavisJune (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Tide Rolls-- you are unbelievable. I,not you, have called for discussion. Once again, this discussion is meant to last a few days. Then, not now, a decision will be made. --DavisJune (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who broke the rules, and you are the one who is inefficient, abhorrent, and frankly, a cunt. You have lost this argument a long time ago, and if your only response to this is to bombard constructive editors with bad-faith template warnings and accuse admins of bias or conspiracy, then just go ahead and eat about eight pounds of ball bag and stop editing forever. Please. GRAPPLE X 03:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• A single editor cannot conduct an edit war, DavisJune. I make no claim to efficiency but if you do not return to the topic of discussion I will block you for disruptive editing. Your choice. Tiderolls 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is harassing people, it is you, DavisJune - leaving false warnings on the user page (not the talk page!) of those who disagree with you is disruptive, and borderline vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)--DavisJune (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• DavisJune has been blocked to stop their disruption of this discussion. Their block will expire before the protection of this article expires so they may return to this discussion if they wish. If the discussion should move forward without the participation of DavisJune I ask that all participants please keep to the topic at hand. Regards Tiderolls 03:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that indicates that this film is being identified as "American"? Would it be clearer to add a referenced statement that the film is being created by an American production company? VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the film's mixed-nationality production, citing the involvement of one production company would simply warrant citing both. This would just lead to some ungainly construction along the lines of "an Anglo-American superhero film"; and I don't really see what use that is given how terribly vague it sounds. It's cleaner and easier to just leave it out entirely rather than trying to concisely note the film's heritage in an aside like that. GRAPPLE X 04:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

While polls and other quasi-votes should be used with caution during heated discussions, in this case the editor who started the discussion section also suggested a vote. Are there any objections to a straw poll to get a feeling as to what the consensus is here? VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor who started the discussion is also canvassing ([1] [2]) and being an uncivil pain in the neck. No, there should not be a poll or vote; we should not encourage this nationalistic crusade. The film is clearly a multi-national production, and nationality is not an intrinsic part of its identity nor is it necessary to establish to a reader what the subject of the article is, so it certainly doesn't need to be in the lead sentence. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an American film

Dark Knight Rises Is A MOVIE About AMERICAN SUPERHERO Based IN AMERICA PRODUCED AND FUNDED BY AMERICAN FILM STUDIOS So This Is AN AMERICAN Film Right IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO PLEASE ADD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WRONG. Legendary Pictures is an American company, Syncopy Films is a British company. The director is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and United States, the hero and villain are both played by Brits (Bale & Hardy), and it was filmed in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It's an American-British co-production. Please stop fiddling with nationalities to suit your own point of view/agenda. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is an American film or British film. The introduction offers the readers a relatively unbiased view of the film. Adding "American" or "American-British" is irrelevant. Such superfluous details are useless and don't add any important information to the article. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the tone, speech, timing and similar acts on other articles I wouldn't be surprised if Saccyind was DavisJune. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible. The tone is much the same, but the only overlap in their contribs seems to be this page. Saccyind has argued nationalities across a handful of film articles, whereas DavisJune seems focused on just this 1 article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, their style of editing is different. Saccyind links the word "American" (so useless), DavisJune doesn't; Saccyind doesn't seem to grasp punctuation, while DavisJune does. They're both single-purpose accounts whose methodology wilfully ignores consensus, but that's about it. GRAPPLE X 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that was out of line, I apologize to Saccyind, at least partially, it's still an unacceptable tone to take. Anyway, as others have said, it has both British and American influences (Remind me when it is unlocked to delete that "it was filmed mostly in America" thing that Davis added). And it just isn't something that needs to be thrust into the opening sentence on any article tbh. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Internal screening

Every film gets one (usually several if the editing process goes on for any significant length or test screenings produce noticeable changes). I'm not sure how useful it is to actually include it, and I can foresee this one having a fair few dates to mention if we do go with this one. Worth noting? For what it's worth, I'd go with no, as it's not something included in the majority of film articles and is likely to be given undue weight with the temptation to add subsequent internal screenings as well. Thoughts?

It's not that notable an event - every film has a screening like this internally. Now, had this been a public sneak preview, that would be another matter - but this, even though it's sourced, just isn't a notable occurrence - there's nothing notable or special about it. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Amount of IMAX footage

According to this source, The Dark Knight Rises will feature over an hour of IMAX footage, a "new record, in terms of length, for a Hollywood feature film." The source doesn't seem to be a blog. If it's reliable, then this should be incorporated into the article, which currently states that there will be about 40–50 minutes of IMAX footage in the film. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Viral marketing

Just curious of why are we linking viral marketing sites. I don't see the need of that personally. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove it if you want, those sites won't exist very long, probably not at all after the film is out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I might just do that. It feels like advertisement in my opinion...I am also not sure we need to explain so much detail of a viral marketing summary...and with a fair use image even? Even if it belongs I think that particular topic might could use some trimming. Me and Tenebrae did a conversation similiar to this if they are necessary. I resolved the discussion with a short and simple sentence going straight to the point for what it's useful for in the particular article that I was working on. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on what the content is. The particular image in use is, IMO, boring. Maybe it is useful to demonstrate something but i don't believe it really brightens up the article, one of the fake police documents might be better in that regard. On Prometheus there is a lot of detail but that's because there is a lot of external info, like it's the only film I know of where the viral advert has a design concept and people actually speaking about what went into making it, so there's interesting info to be had. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding "Catwoman" next to Selina's name

Since it's pretty obvious about now that Hathaway is Catwoman, should we not add it next to Selina's name? Jedi Striker (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not the name of her character, then no we don't. We did not add "Two-Face" next to Harvey Dent, because the character is never identified by that name. It's used in the film as a reference to a nickname he had once ago, but never actually directed at him as an identifier. If her character is the same way, and it wouldn't strike me as odd that she wouldn't be identified as such, then it is not our place to put a name next a character just because that is what she is called in the comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an angrier post because I'm sick of this "pretty obvious" bull that's being pulled here and on other comic-related film articles, so I will just defer to BigNole and say No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding the Running Time

An Australian Cinema website has confirmed that the running time is 160 minutes. Thought that we should add that to that little sidebar with the movies info.

http://www.eventcinemas.com.au/Movie/The-Dark-Knight-Rises — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeakin13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Trailer info

I think that in the "Marketing" section, the information about the third trailer should be separated, beginning with the sentence that goes "In april", along with some information regarding the release of the trailer on the movies website and on warnerbros youtube page. Maybe even some response from big magazines like Entertainment Weekly. Also, keep your eyes open regarding some new information and photos regarding the movie coming from Total Film next week. I'm sure there'll be some important info.

Also I think there should be an update about the winners of the design contest. Not saying we should feature their names, but tell the reader that a winner has been chosen already. Has anyone else noticed there are advertisements everywhere for dark knight rises T-shirts?

Anyways. My two cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeakin13 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

All Batman films are American

dark knight rises is acquired,bought and distributed by An American Studio Warner Bros All Over World which makes it an American Film then why not write about it please change it as American Superhero Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.226.138 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

CHANGE THE MOTHERF'N POSTER! THEY JUST RELEASED THE OFFICIAL POSTERFOR THIS MOVIE!

216.96.97.235 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done

Please post a link to the image that you're talking about and please explain why that image is better than the current image, which is also an offical poster. DonQuixote (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

References to use

I don't have the time sadly to commit to this article and others I'm following but here are some really good sources of info posted today on Collider for anyone who wants to use them.

• http://collider.com/emma-thomas-the-dark-knight-rises-interview/168883/
• http://collider.com/anne-hathaway-the-dark-knight-rises-interview/169080/
• http://collider.com/tom-hardy-the-dark-knight-rises-interview/169104/
• http://collider.com/christian-bale-the-dark-knight-rises-interview/169110/
• http://collider.com/the-dark-knight-rises-set-visit/169238/

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I might see what I can do with them some time when I have a free time. But not all together, that would be too much work. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Modine's character has received a name change

Matthew Modine's character, listed here as "Nixon," has been revealed to be Deputy Commissioner Foley.

This info can be found via various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.117.154 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide one of those sources. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This was actually announced a bit ago; I just made the change with the proper reference. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't want to forget his parents deaths

Parents should be either parents' or parents's. Can someone please fix? Thanks. 131.111.216.115 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it was a clarification within a direct quote I just put " [sic]" next to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

World premiere date source

Is this source acceptable for the world premiere date, which takes place on July 16? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Production Notes

http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/downloads/TDKR_productionNotes.pdf

This is from the official website for the movie and has a lot of good source material. Just thought I'd post it and see if anybody wants it.

75.87.109.34 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

spelling error "Bane is describeS as" ... should be "describeD as"

24.138.76.232 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done fixed, thank you for pointing that out. RudolfRed (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Release and WP:SPOILERS

With the film a week away, I feel like now is a good time to bring something up that is likely to be an issue: spoilers. Although most countries get the film on the 20th, some of us - myself included - get it on the 19th, and possibly even earlier. As such, it is likely that an outline of the plot will go up early on the 19th.

Spoilers have been a recurring issue in many of the major releases that I have seen, including The Avengers and Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol. Some people will remove content from the page for the sake of not spoiling the film for others, and while this is a perfectly understandable point of view, Wikipedia does have a policy on this, and I would like to draw attention to two key parts of it:

Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so.

And:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

Now, I know the page is protected, so IP edits deleting the plot section should not be a problem. However, auto-confirmed users may do it. If you see someone has blanked the plot section for the sake of protecting readers from spoilers, please revert those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What I will say is that if people are adding the plot, if it is before the actual release date it SHOULD be removed, not for spoilers but because it is unverifiable. People added a plot early at Prometheus and there were complaints it was inaccurate and this was later confirmed that it was largely inaccurate. Getting a plot up as fast as possible is not the goal of these articles and is likened to someone posting "First" in a comments section, the important part should it being accurate and short, not present. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED! Get that through your head. If the plot can be put up before "official" release, then we owe it to people who enjoy the FREE FLOW OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION to put it up for them to see. We are not here to censor so-called "spoilers" because you are desperately attempting to weasel them out by claiming "omgz da movie has not come out in every single country evaaaar, so we can't post plot".

Once it has been viewed ANYWHERE, all we require is a consensus and the plot section can be created and/or updated. This can change when it's verifiable by major sources but until then the public at large has been to private and select screenings. Deal with it. You can't stop the signal! 124.169.54.104 (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Batman

I thnk you rather missed the point of DWB's statement. Millahnna (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

FIRST! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But yeah seriously, I think the IP stopped reading my statement about 23 words in. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, There is a difference between removing the plot outline because you don't want film spoled for others, and removing it because it's wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is a special circumstance where we should at the very least include a warning that this article is filled to the teeth with spoilers. People going to the article before seeing the movie for something like cast information will be incredibly upset, and I think the anticipation for this movie is debate-ably greater than the vast majority of films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.122.5 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's POV, and it's something that changes per article (some people might think the same for movie X). Keeping things neutral, this article is going to be treated like every other article on this site. See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just confirming...

...after having attended last night's NYC screening that the cast section here is correct and that Selina Kyle is never referred to as Catwoman either within the film or in the end-credits. Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson, who had cameos, are duly credited in the end-credits. (Now if anyone could just tell me whether the guy in the scene with John and the receptionist at the end is an uncredited John Malkovich or just someone who really, really looks like him!) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenebrae! You should totally feel free to add to the Plot section of the main article. So where exactly was the July 17th screening of the movie in New York? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.51 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken references

The reference section is a huge mess, replete with cite errors. Since I'm not a regular contributor to this article, could any such person look into it? Ilov90210 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that to. I've never seen anything like it (though this page uses a format slightly different to what I'm used to). I have no idea what happened or how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Took a bit of finding, but it was an additional reflist tag that caused the issue. Two cites still in red - I can't see where they would obviously be.. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been fixed.

Spoilers

There are so many spoilers throughout. Especially in regards to Marion Cotillard's character and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character's name. Someone should remove these.--173.21.31.68 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't put spoiler tags in the article. If you don't like being spoiled, you shouldn't be on the film wiki article or just ignore the part. StarShopSTX (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that the plot should stay and that wikipedia isn't concerned with spoilers. The fact that someone has altered the names to reveal parts of the movie is just trolling. I reverted the names to how they are listed in promotional material and the credits of the film. If someone would like to change them back they should find a source to reference. Skute (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:SPOILER:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section).

The Archivist (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, you shouldn't trust any pop culture article on Wikipedia; they're notorious for their unreliability and fan theories. ;) 50.131.220.134 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A Themes and Inspiration section?

Here is an article I found that discussed the inspirations of the films: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=92305 --Eddyghazaley (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, for now. Literary interpretation is a very subjective matter at the best of times. I can see where the themes in The Dark Knight Rises and A Tale of Two Cities might intersect, but only in a loose sense. So I'd suggest waiting until the release, and if a critic - particularly a prominent one - points out the parallels, or some kind of essay, then maye we could reconsider. Maybe the best way forward is a sentence on it in the development subsection, but anything more would probably need something to go with Nolan's comments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wayne's eulogy uses a direct quote from Tale of Two Cities.192.249.47.177 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

detPonate

This needs to be corrected, but the article is locked.192.249.47.177 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelling errors

There are some errors that I have noticed on the page like missplet word 'detopnated' instesd of detonated and some more in the same paragraphGeniusvdc (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing more bizarre than detopnated is using misspelt instead of misspelled. Welcome to 1832 —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Misspelt is the accepted British-English spelling

Two plot sections???

Section 1: Plot -no text-

Section 2: Plot -the actual plot-

What?? Test35965 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nvm - Fixed already. Test35965 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

colorado shooting

Is it necessary to be included?? It has barely anything to do with the actual movie.(Let me just say that this was a tragic event, and my thoughts and condolences to the families of the victims).Caringtype1 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it turns out that the shooter specifically targeted this movie, rather than choosing it randomly, then it certainly is notable. This also led to the premiere's cancelling in Paris and marketing was altered in certain countries, and those are definately facts related to the movie. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass Shooting

Opening night a mass shooting happened. Since the suspect did it in conjunction with this movie's opening night and he called himself the "joker" should this not be included? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dark-knight-rises-screening-shooting-aurora-colo-leaves-hollywood-reeling-article-1.1118619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.152 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The shooting is mentioned. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

it's sad and sick, but has really NOTHING to do with this movie as a whole. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012

grammar error: "to which Gordon deduces" ... should be "from which Gordon deduces"

I don't see that phrase now, so I think the wording has been edited or cleaned up. RudolfRed (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Please change "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in Australia on July 19, 2012" to "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in New Zealand on July 19, 2012" because of the time difference between New Zealand and Australia it will actually be shown in New Zealand first. See the original source for confirmation that it is releasing in New Zealand on July 19 and see [zone] for confirmation about the time difference.

Thanks for your time. O0henry0o (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I woud suggest that "The Dark Knight Rises is first scheduled to release in Australia and New Zealand on July 19, 2012" might be a better way to put it. WP:FILMRELEASE dictates the following:

The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. {{Film date}} should be used for the film's release dates. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article.

Adjusting the article to say Australia rather than New Zealand would be wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't account for any possible differences in screening times in both countries. It is entirely conceivable that the earliest showing in Australia is 9am, and the earliest in New Zealand is at 1pm. Even though New Zealand is three hours ahead of Australia, the earlier screening time technically means that it went on general release in Australia first. Secondly, it kind of feels like you're angling for bragging rights by saying New Zealand got to see the film first. I know that's probably not your intention, but when you're making an edit request based on a three-hour time difference, it does seem a little pedantic. So I will partially meet your edit request, and amend the article to read "Australia and New Zealand". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first reason is invalid because they are screening it at 12:00am on July 19th in Australia and New Zealand. Secondary it's not about bragging rights it's about it being correct. What was written on the page was incorrect, it is not being released it Australia first. Incorrections like this give wikipedia a bad reputation for being a legit source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0henry0o (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a single example of a film release where a three-hour time difference between markets has justified a change of wording in an article to say one market released the film first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Based on the above, consensus is needed before this change is done. RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

There appears to be some discord as to whether we should retain the reception summary statement as The Dark Knight Rises has "received universal praise from critics" or "received generally positive reviews from critics" or the like. In order to preclude edit warring, please discuss sentiments here.--Ziggypowe (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, I'm against any use of "critical/universal acclaim" because of the simple fact that you cannot generalize such a small sample to every critic in that way. RT and MetaCritic only pull from a certain number. RT pulls from an average of 200, but they don't use the words "acclaim". MetaCritic will use "acclaim" but only pull from maybe 50 critics, at best. That's not enough to use those terms. I'm ok with "generally positive" or just "positive", but I'm also ok with nothing and just let the data reflect itself. Readers are not stupid and can figure out that a 95% approval rating is pretty positive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "Universal acclaim" in any capacity this early is incorrect. Using universal acclaim when there are 29 reviews on one site is absolutely unacceptable.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While I do not believe it is compulsory, I believe it would be a judicious decision to defer the inclusion - for a couple of days - of "universal praise" or "universal acclaim" or the like. This will allow for The Dark Knight Rises to accrue a broader critical review or acclaim status that may better reflect that statement. If it retains highly positive scores akin what it has garnered thus far, that would merit inclusion. I prefer "virtually universal critical acclaim" to qualify the statement some, as there is always some dissenters. --Ziggypowe (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem there is that it is your opinion that it has "acclaim". You cannot weaken the stance by using "virtually", because it's still a POV assessment. That's the problem with such a strong qualifier. Like I said, Rotten Tomates collects more reviews but never uses words like "critical acclaim", while MetaCritic does use those words but only collects a handful of reviews. Either way, it's an inappropriate qualifier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It so no more my opinion that the movie has "critical acclaim" than it has "positive reviews." --Ziggypowe (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both are "opinions" in a technical sense, but one is a generalization and the other applies a more specific meaning that cannot be measured by the data we collect. I can say that most reviews were positive. I cannot actually show that there is "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim" because that is applying a level of magnitude in the positivity of the review that we measure, as well as insinuating a numerical understanding of how many critics praised a film that, again, we cannot measure because we're only taking samples.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite it may being a sample, you may still obtain an efficaciously accurate description of the movie's reception and approval status, i.e., "critical acclaim." The GA article, Inception, states: "The film was critically acclaimed." I have seen such a statement in many other film articles as well. "Critically acclaimed" is acceptable for inclusion in The Dark Knight Rises article also. It is common sense, which Wikipedia espouses the use of, that if a film is lauded and enjoys high scores, it could be considered "critically acclaimed."--Ziggypowe (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, but pointing to other articles that do something isn't always a valid reason to adopt it in this or any other article, and neither is whipping out "common sense". DonQuixote (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Inception is like 2-3 years old and has the benefit of hindsight in declaring such a thing (though I wouldn't agree with it). People are trying to apply it to a film based on an incredibly small group of reviews from a single site when it isn't even out and when things can drastically change. Long story short, do.not.add.it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, we can wait for The Dark Knight Rises to accrue a broader critical review and approval status that may better reflect the statement of "critically acclaim." If it retains highly positive scores akin what it has garnered thus far, that would merit inclusion of "critically acclaim."--Ziggypowe (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What everyone is saying is that there is not going to be any level that would garner that wording because of a lack of the number of reviews as well as the lack of substantial reviews saying that. You cannot determine "acclaim" on your own. I don't need to worry about determining "positive", becuase Rotten Tomatoes does that for me by assigning a positive/negative figure to reviews and counting them. That said, with the film now slipping down into the 80s in approval, I don't think it's going to magically jump up anywhere near what even you would consider "critical acclaim".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the reception section so far. Lemire's review need's to be added to at least be a little neutral...and IGN is not really the best of inclusions for movie reviews. If no improving has done later looks like I may have to step in. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The reception section is naturally in its infant stage as the movie has not even been formally and widely released yet. Also, step in and do what exactly? --Ziggypowe (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Help out editing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I am well aware that it's in it's infant stage but avoiding a negative review when there is one is against Wikipedia's neutral policy. It's amazing how fast positive reviews are added over a negative review. That being said I am more than patient on it being improved. So that's why I am in the sidelines for now and letting other editor's do their thing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@User:Just another guy in a suit, this phrase "While not as acclaimed as its predecessor" is POV, unnecessary commentary and entirely subjective based on the comparison of weighted subjective scores from aggregate sites. Like the above discussion it is incorrect and inappropriate and I urge you to discontinue adding it. If you think its inclusion has support, feel free to ask here where I'm fairly certain you will be proven wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, why not just say what the Rotten Tomatoes consensus says. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding their blurb isn't a problem (Which isn't saying the same thing he is saying), he's opening the section with that commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. RT seems to be the only source to back up a claim like that, that's why I mentioned it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to be late to this particular discussion, but we've had many similar discussions on the [[WP:FIM] ]talk page, where the feeling is that "critically acclaimed" for anything not a widely acknowledged film classic that has stood the test of time is a WP:PEACOCK term. The manifest content of the term "critically acclaimed" doesn't provide any more objective, factual information than the more measured and neutral term "positively reviewed." I agree with the commenter who said it doesn't belong at Inception. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake If we're using RT to reflect the film having "received largely positive reviews from critics", why aren't we then acknowledging that it hasn't been as well-received as its predecessor? The rating and consensus reflect this. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We SHOULD be using reviews to reflect that, not RT. RT makes up its own consensus and weighting system and to open the section based on that is not an acceptable methodology and applies undue weight to RT. It is also, as I said, subjective. RT judges what is good and what is bad. Are the reviews "It's awesome, Joker was just a better villain"? Subjective. And based at the moment, on an exceedingly small pool of reviews. But I've said this to you a few times already, so I'll let others weigh in. If you're that desperate to add it, add the RT consensus TO the part discussing RT. Do not open the section with it as if it is the gospel truth. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not desperate to add anything. It's just that RT is the most trusted review aggregator here, and its rating and consensus reflect that this is an inferior film in the eyes of critics. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Barring the fact that is subjective, barring the fact that its based on one site and its methodology of aggregating reviews, barring the fact that they are not in direct competition or comparison, the films youre talking about have nearly THREE HUNDRED reviews, so your assertion that it is declaring it an "inferior" film is again, unacceptable, and does not belong in this article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On a few other films pages, they have been discussions what should be the critic consensus on Wikipedia, and it always concluded that it is either 'generally negative reviews' or 'generally positive reviews' or some other way with 'negative' and 'positive' interested in. No 'panned' or 'acclaimed'. As it is biased and not professional.

The film so far, isn't as acclaimed as The Dark Knight, so we can say that. "Received positive reviews, but not as many as The Dark Knight". Charlr6 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the word "largely" is synonymous with "generally." It does not have to be in respect to weight. Check here and you will see that such is true.--Ziggypowe (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammatically, it's incorrect to use it that way. Not to mention that it is a peacock term because it's a non-descript measurement that cannot be verified. Additionally, it's a qualifier for a qualifier, which is also inappropriate for writing. In other words, you have an adjective describing another adjective, which is itself describing something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who added it nor am I fervent about its inclusion, but you are incorrect when you state it is grammatically wrong to use it in that manner. It is apt and grammatically correct to use it in the manner it was used.--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you state, "it's a qualifier for a qualifier." That is what adverbs are for to modify chiefly verbs and in some languages, including English, adjectives, such as "positive." As for not being verifiable, the fact that the great majority of reviewers on RT are classified as positive, corroborates the use of "largely," which is synonymous with "mostly" and "mainly."--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ziggypowe, the term "largely" for one does not have to be in reference to weight. Also in the case of using it in the reception section of a movie in dealing with reviews, there are other examples of movies where is has been used and not removed such as the wizard of oz. Also you also revert back the number of reviews on rotten tomatoes from 122 to 121 while it is currently at 122 on rotten tomatoes. Davidhogan 3 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One article doing something is not an excuse for others to do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one example of many though that I have seen on wikipedia pages that refer to movies Davidhogan 3 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree not in all cases, but in many cases looking at other articles is a good way to see how something should be done, especially higher rated articles such as GA (e.g. Inception) and FA articles.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To give you a general idea, yes, but not for specific wordings. In the case of Inception, we've already pointed out that there was a discussion regarding the use of "Critical acclaim" in films and that Inception should not be using that terminology. With regard to "largely". Yes, I understand that some people see it as "generally", but the primary definition is not "generally". The problem with using it lies in its inability to accurate reflect what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the reviews were "really" positive, or that there were "many" positives? The term "largely" does not have a singular definition that makes it easy to understand what you're referring to. Given that the primary definition for "largely" is a reflection of "weight" (I don't necessarily mean how much something literally weighs, but also the value of something) and not a reflection of numerical significance (though yes, I get that it can be used that way). Given that, it is inappropriate to use because of its unclear meaning in the sentence. Thus, it is better to just leave out any additional modifier, unless you're going to be more specific about what you're saying. "Largely" is not an appropriate qualifier to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just stating, "The Dark Knight Rises has received positive reviews from critics,"implicitly, and some maybe would say explicitly, declares all reviews are positive. When a qualifier is added in signifies that all reviews may not have been positive, which is the case. Nevertheless, I prefer "mostly" to "largely" anyway. I initially just wanted to refute your assertion that it was grammatically erroneous to use "largely" in that manner, but "mostly" is preferable and good to use.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm actually much happier with "mostly" in place of "largely." Sorry if my edit summary came off as brash. QValintyne (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Its fine. You were technically correct with using "largely" in the manner you did but some felt there was some ambiguity. Thus, it was altered to a more intelligible, unequivocal word: "mostly."--Ziggypowe (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It actually has a positive rating of 89% and average rating of 8.2 out of 10 amongst the top critics on Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.95.203 (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is happening on yet another film talk page - during at least two discussions on the film project page the inferrence, if not outright consensus has been that the lead "Recieved (choose your descriptor) reviews" is not preferable to a third party. I don't care if we lead with RT, metacritic or something else, but regardless of how positive, negative or mediocre the film is seen to be by the editor at the time.--Williamsburgland (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For reference - here is a discussion on the FILM project page I initiated, here a lengthy discussion that predates it and really doesn't go anywhere, and here is a third. All have been archived without consensus, including mine. I started it after an editor who has participated in this and other discussions asked that I do so, only to have that editor fail to join the project page discussion. I am all for starting/participating in a new one as I'm very interested in generating consensus and an overarching policy. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

While arguments made in those discussion are sound, in this article we have come a a consensus as to the wording of the statement at hand and, thus, the retention of such statement in the article. I will revert your alteration. Please endeavor in reaching a new consensus in this article or successfully reaching a consensus on a policy before reverting.--Ziggypowe (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing your argument in the discussion, arguments against it, and a separate argument for "largely" versus "mostly". I'm not seeing a consensus, nor anything that would invalidate every other discussion I've had on the matter. Rotten Tomatoes or another aggrigator delivers the message just fine without terms like the one currently leading that section.--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay to add reviews that are not on RT or metacritic? If so I think an review from The Salt Lake Tribune and Seattle Pi should be added.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54498047-80/action-batman-bruce-dark.html.csp

http://blog.seattlepi.com/peoplescritic/2012/07/19/review-the-dark-knight-rises/

Absolutely, as long as they are reliable. For the record, blogs are now. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How can I add my reviews to the reception?--Informant4 (talk) {{edit Semi protected}}

I would like to make an edit about the response from Oscar Voters.

"But Ellis' description of the screening was at odds with most eyewitness accounts. According, to an article from thewrap.com: The film played extremely well," said a member in attendance, who added that many of the voters he spoke to thought it was the best of Nolan's three Batman movies. Still, he added, the shootings could taint the movie in voters' minds: "The Academy members were certainly with it, [but] psychologically it may hurt at nomination time, in my opinion." http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/will-oscar-voters-look-past-dark-knight-tragedy-48966?page=0,1--Informant4 (talk) {{edit Semi protected}}

Edit request on 19 July 2012

Robin John Blake not John Blake

168.161.192.16 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this is already covered in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary section

Would it be crazy to say that this section should be cleaned up and merged with the Reception section? I think it's a tad too sparse to be a full-on commentary section on its own. Could the frivelous claims by Rush Limbaugh be added as well?[3] QValintyne (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be gotten rid of all together, as it has nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with one person trying to force a political agenda out of the movie. If it's allowed to be here, then someone should go add a section to The Muppets (film) for the same thing, as various reporters and personalities on Fox News tried to push it out as communist propaganda. 138.162.140.53 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

i added a commentary section (taking cue from The Dark Knight page which also has a commentary section on the various interpretations of that film. i don't know what the previously deleted commentary section was about but what i had put in was merely one reviewer's (of many) that have noticed the strong parallels to the Occupy movement in TDKR. this was promptly removed by Gogen and dismissed as "completely unnecessary" without any further discussion. i intend to re-insert it and expand on it with other sources as i think it is not an obscure opinion or uncommon analysis of the film. i am open to having this in the reception section but, again, as there were several social commentary theories on the TDK - there are likewise with this film - as nolan's films are obviously very multi-layered. i hope we can have reasonable debate in good faith on this issue.(Marxwasright (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Has any movie reviewer at Salon or The Guardian ever accused a film of perpetuating a liberal agenda? In other words, if it was a perspective they agreed with, would they try to point out a film's supposed political agenda? I note the Commentary section has no balance. It merely describes 2 critics who decry what they see as it's Conservative politics, then quotes Nolan's defense against this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.78.230 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this section really needed? What value and relevance does it bring to the film itself? There are few (if any) other movie articles that talk about political agendas that may or may not be implied in the movie. Although this section contains references, it borders on original research and non-encyclopedic content. If this section were deleted, would anyone miss it? There is always the basic Wikipedia guideline ... be bold. Truthanado (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If the section is to exist then it should be independent and not part of the reception. If it's reception then it should be built directly into it. If not, then it should be indepedent. Themes and analysis may share commentary with reception, but we don't make it a subsection of critical reviews, it is its own section. I think we have been putting too much emphasis on some political commentary about the film as well as the shootings and they should not be the forefront of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What logic are you using that the Dark Knight (film)'s commentary section is part of the reception is okay but DKR simply shouldn't be? Besides the fact that it's a different film (of the same series, same director, same franchise)? Osh33m (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that what is a TDK is ok. It should not be there either. TDK also has "themes" under reception, and WP:MOSFILM clearly has that as a separate section to be discussed. Commentary about the film is not the same as its reception. Speaking about themes or messages within a film from a not critiquing standpoint should be an independent topic. If they were directly related to the film's reception, then why not simply put them with the othe reviews?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you on that note but I still do not see why you keep removing my source that includes Freeman's quotes. What makes what Dixon had to say so much more important than Freeman? Farhadpersia (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that I was removing anything. I will review the edit and put it back where it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Although, you must have been aware about something because you kept on removing the source, and "Freeman" from the sentence. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of anything, because I was reverting each time. The source was removed (I assume by accident) during one of the initial moves from its original placement. After that, it was a matter of just reverting the move, and thus not being aware that the source was continually being deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Then we have officially cooperatively compromised. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Blake, Alfred and the Joker

I've noticed a few things in the plot summary that need to be addressed:

1) We cannot link to the Robin oage when referring to Blake. No character in the comics who has assumed the identity of Robin has ever used the name "Robin John Blake". Furthermore, the ending can be interpreted as meaning that Blake will become the second Batman, not Robin. Until someone involved in production - like Nolan - confirms that Blake is intended to be Robin, we cannot state that he is. For the sake of comparison, look to the post-credits scene of The Avengers, where the Other meets Thanos. It is never speciically stated that the character is Thanos, and it is only with confirmation from Marvel that the film's page can state the character is Thanos. The same logic applies here.

2) The plot outline states that Alfred "manipulates Bruce Wayne". I would argue that he is not manipulating Bruce, and that doing so is out of character. Impressing upon Bruce the idea that he cannot be Batman anymore is a much more neutral and much more consistent description.

3) The opening line of the outline states "eight years after the Joker killings", which links to the page for The Dark Knight. When I first wrote the outline, I used this particular phrase very deliberately. Characters within the film The Dark Knight specifically refer to the events within the film as "the Joker killings" in the same way that characters within The Dark Knight Rises refer to the anniversary of Harvey Dent's death as "Harvey Dent Day".

Also, I find the explantion of Bane's backstory to be long and excessively detailed, and especially out of place as it is later proven to be incorrect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that linking The Dark Knight (film) to the Joker Killings violates WP:EGG, as we do not include easter egg links. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But it's not an easter egg. The film clearly establishes that it takes place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, which itself refers to the events it portrays as "the Joker killings". It's not in violation of WP:EGG. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go to Talk:Iron Man 2, you'll see a comprehensive discussion and consensus that according to WP:FILM and the relevant guidelines about writing about fiction, we can only describe a plot with what is seen and heard on screen. If the filmmakers wanted to call the events the Joker killings, they would have. Therefore, The Dark Knight would be completely acceptable to use as a link to the events (For example, in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, it also includes a link to the previous film in the plot section). Anything that we might add based on personal knowledge or belief is disallowed by the No Original Research policy. As for film plot, we can only go by the primary source. Even if we do or don't want to respect their wishes, Wikipedia guidelines state that we have to respect the primary source and therefore, we cannot add outside commentary. However, I am concerned about whether we should link to Ra's al Ghul's death in Batman Begins, which is where WP:EGG comes in. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes there's no Robin John Blake in the comics but this a clear reference to the character in the comics and with John inheriting the Bat cave and quitting the police force because he wants to fight "injustice", it's implied he will take up the mantle where Bruce left off. Hey may not call himself Robin but it was clearly a deliberate nod to the character to bring up his legal name in the last few minutes of the film.~last son of krypton (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's simply a reference to the comics, and nothing more should be read into it. Without confirmation from Nolan that Blake is intended to actually be Robin, we cannot claim he is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anarcho-Communism

"and the city further regresses into an anarcho-communist state"

...is fundamentally wrong, has a political bias, and should be replaced with something along the lines of 'martial order.' Anarcho-communism is a very specific ideology and does not apply to the situation in Gotham which is run by an authoritarian and his armed 'military'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.202.182 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not martial order. Martial law requires the law to be enforced by the military. The situation in Gotham City is one where the criminals and mercenaries are in control. If anything it's an anarchic kleptocracy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

...I believe that Bane clearly states that the city is under martial law, but I think the most appropriate term would be 'warlordism'. Essentially one warlord (Bane) owns the area and controls all of its social/political/judicial/economic(in terms of distribution of supplies, food etc) activities.

Can we please replace the word "anarchy"? The city is under an authority and is even described as a city under martial law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.200.132 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Martial law" would be equally incorrect. Martial law is defined as the military taking control of a city, state or courtry in the event of an emergency. While a military - the League of Shadows and an army of mercenaries and criminals - takes over the city, they do not represent the United States Government. Only a formal military can take control when martial law is declared. And Bane's address to the citizens of Gotham makes it pretty clear that he and his army have no intention of forming a government. They are simply there to remove the rich, powerful, decadent and corrupt, and leave the citizens to self-govern. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Shootings in Colorado

Not sure if this really belongs in the article (depending on how it develops it might get its own article anyway), but the BBC have a story about a mass shooting at a premiere of the film in Denver. BulbaThor (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

10 people shot dead at premiere of new Batman film in Denver. Yes, the terrorist was said to be a deranged fan of the Alex Jones channel. The BBC reports that he believed conspiracies concerning the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and has posted a manifesto criticising the Batman movies for so-called "political indoctrination". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcreporting123 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

HUH? --Τασουλα (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's too tenuous to include the shooting in this article at this time. It's not like crimes committed in bowling alleys are mentioned in the bowling alley article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A right wing terrorist in a gas mask and Joker Makeup is tenuous? This guy is practically an obsessed fan of the movie and a mass murderer, therefore there is a link that is relevant to an encyclopeadic definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcreporting123 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your previous comment did not make that even a little bit clear. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, given the chaos, it's a little premature to go describing him as a "right-wing terrorist", given that no motive has been established and federaul authorities are only just concluding the preliminary stages of the investigation. You describe him as "practically an obsessed fan", but you have no source to back that up, and witness reports claim that the shooter was dressed as Bane. Other reports suggest that several members of the audience were dressed in character, so it's impossible to tell if the shooter's costume was intended as a political statement or simply camoflauge. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the text in this article is that is contradicts that in the actual article for the shooting. For example no mention of being dressed as Bane. Either text may need clarification. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The shooting occurred at the film's screening, and Warner Brothers have cancelled the Paris premier, so there is a link from this article to the shooting. Once there is more infomation on the shootings, the two should be linked together, but right now let's keep it out since it is such a recent event to happen and the infomation in that article will be changing constantly. What does everyone else think? 92.7.83.152 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: CNN reporting that the police arresting him said he called himself The Joker and spray painted his hair red. So the Bain references can now be removed. SOURCE: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/20/theater-shooting-gunman-just-firing-picking-random-people/?hpt=hp_t1

The citing of source [147] is simply untrue. through no real determination could one derive that other witnesses make the claim that the shooting was timed to coincide with Batman's first appearence on the screen! I read the entire source article and it is using a little bit of pure fantasy to be able to justify that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.3.86 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

One cannot truly cite how someone looks to someone else. The gunman wore a gas mask and many initial reports (both media and eyewitness) made the Bane connection regardless of what the shooter allegedly said. Some reports have said that the shooter has been quiet the entire time and has not uttered a single word since being arrested. "The Joker" bit may actually be sensationalism at its best (worst?). It's too early to tell the details, but the comparison of how someone appears versus their personal statement makes this a little murky to properly detail. QValintyne (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Word count in plot subsection

The word count in plot subsection is currently at 701 words, which is literally just outside the limit of 700 as per WP:FILMPLOT, but I think that is acceptable.

More to the point, I think it's just about perfect the way it currently is. Everything that needs to be covered is covered, which is no small feat given how much happens in the film (it was bloody difficult to write the first draft of it, too!). So I don't think there is any need to add or subtract anything from it from now on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you're so stedfast to prevent the plot from being edited, you wrote it. You need to understand that Wikipedia has many contributors, not just yourself. I understand that when someone writes something they take mental ownership of it and feel that they wrote it exactly how it should be written. They feel if it could be written better, they would have done so. But that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is written and maintained by many many people. For the most part, anyone with good intentions is only making positive contributions. Understand that the plot sections isn't "written and complete". Nothing on Wikipedia is finished. And you have not been given the power to say anything on Wikipedia needn't have anything subtracted or added. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you put this best yourself: you need to understand that Wikipedia has many contributors, not just yourself. I understand that when someone writes something they take mental ownership of it and feel that they wrote it exactly how it should be written. They feel if it could be written better, they would have done so. But that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is written and maintained by many many people. For the most part, anyone with good intentions is only making positive contributions. Understand that the plot sections isn't "written and complete". Nothing on Wikipedia is finished. And you have not been given the power to say anything on Wikipedia needn't have anything subtracted or added. Practice what you preach. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said, unfortunately some editors in the past 36 hours with redlinked userpages (maybe neophytes who just signed up as SPAs) keep on inserting stuff that makes the plot well over the specified FILMPLOT limit. They even crow in their edit summaries to stop removing this or that because "this is an open community." Sorry kids, WP:FILMPLOT sticks - and don't even try going IAR.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot section currently stands at 709 words, and looking at the guidelines, I think it's fairly OK at this length. The guidelines state that it can be longer in certain circumstances, such as where "the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." I'd say that the summary covers the main points, and it doesn't need to be made any more concise. drewmunn (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting specifically on their edits, I think going over a little (say to 800 or 900 words) wouldn't be too bad as the film is nearly three hours long. Hot Stop 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what are you saying? We ignore the guideline so anybody and everybody could bloat it all to heck? I don't think so. Are there precedents?--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that guidelines are guidelines, that is the spirit is more important that the words. The plot guideline is for keeping the plot summary from becoming bloated and dominating the article. If the total word count is say, 760, as long as it's within the spirit of the guideline then it's probably okay. DonQuixote (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012

The article says "Aurora, Canada" when it should be "Aurora, Colorado"

64.231.119.22 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

.Edit request on 20 July 2012.

Under Cast, it reads: " Juno Temple as Holly Robinson, friend and accomplice of Selina Kyle;"

In the movie end credits and IMDB, she is credited as Jen, not Holly Robinson.

Please change to: "Juno Temple as Jen, friend and accomplice of Selina Kyle;"

That is all.

Thank you.

c-ya:-)

-j 75.84.221.208 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately, the offical WB site doesn't list her. I poked a bit deeper and came up with nothing. We can't use imdb and need to avoid original research, but something should turn up in the next few days. Sorry! Rivertorch (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

75.84.221.208 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bane Motivation and ending

I'd suggest that Bane's -implied- motivation (fulfilling Ra's al Ghul's plans to destroy Gotham) should be added to the plot summary. Also, it may be worthwhile clarifying the ending, as it really wasn't left that ambiguous in the film. Someone already posted about the actual meaning of the ending, but it needs to be added to the plot summary.

ItalA19 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's only implied, we can't state it. To do so would be original research.

Furthermore, the plot outline currently weighs in at 699 words. Under WP:FILMPLOT, summaries of film plots should be between 400 and 700 words. As it stands, everything that needs to be covered is covered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As the plot summary stands, the sole line describing Bane's motivation is "says that he has assumed the leadership of the League of Shadows following the death of Ra's al Ghul.". Without prior knowledge of the story arc of the past two films, a reader would have no understanding of that. I'm not suggesting someone rehash Batman Begins, but this is a bit absurd. Should a reader really have to read a plot summary of a prior film in order to understand this one? If this line is removed, Bane's motivation is completely absent, and without any kind of a motivation, his actions would make little sense to the reader. And ease up with the 700 word limit. WP:FIVEPILLARS clearly states this is not a hard rule, considering the film has two that precede it. ItalA19 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

References to A Tale of Two Cities could be added into the plot section. The Scarecrow's Tribunal is based on the Revolutionary Tribunal, and at the end of the film, Comm. Gordon is reading from Dickens' novel rather than the Bible.

Lucysword (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is notable. You're crowing WP:TRIVIA, and the plot has been trimmed to limits. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to write this one off. There was a brief discussion a week or two ago about including references to A Tale of Two Cities in the article, as Christopher Nolan was quoted as saying that he drew some inspiration from it. If Gordon is quoting the book, then it certainly rates a mention, though it is probably better-suited to the development section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will point out what I said on my own talk page to another concerned editor. The section of Wikipedia policy quoted: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." Summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. This is a guideline, not necessarily a hard rule. Considering the length of this movie, as I already pointed out and a considerable back story involved in this story's plot, I think it's fair to say that this movie does have a complicated plot which makes it hard to squeeze into that suggested range. Not that it can't be. But it doesn't give the plot justice to leave out important detail just to satisfy a suggestive policy. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Anyone who'd like to propose actual wording supported by reliable sources may change the "answered" parameter in the template at the top of this section back to "no". In the meantime, there's no reason to keep the edit request open while discussion proceeds. Rivertorch (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the shooting should not have a place in this article.

I read an interesting thought earlier. That James Holmes's goal was to gain recognition, staging this rampage in accordance with the release of a major blockbuster, in order to hitch his historic star to it.

"And he succeeded." this person wrote. "He will forever have a place, as an asterisk on the Dark Knight Rises Wikipedia page."

That seems very, very wrong to me.

It's a difficult balance to strike, between the pragmatic need for clear and concise information, and the ethical imperative not to legitimize such acts as this. Unfortunately, in an age dominated by the ubiquity of information, even a mention on Wikipedia is tantamount to immortalization.

I don't presume to know the right answer.

But I do have an opinion:

Fuck James Holmes, and to hell with his desires. Scour all traces of this event from the DKR Wikipedia article. Make it a rule, and do it forever. James Holmes, and men like him, want historic recognition for their barbarism? Say no. Don't give it to them. Have an article for the Aurora shooting, if you must, but don't have the Dark Knight Rises page link to it. Or fifty years from now, people will still be reading about ~The Great and Terrible James Holmes~.

Or even better: have a section about the shooting, but don't mention Holmes by name. Just refer to him as "a gunman" throughout, and don't mention his name even once. I can think of no better comeuppance.

I know I'm raking leaves on a windy day here, and there are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made for the imperative of unbiased information, free of ulterior motives. But information has power, and it's important to recognize that. If I run out and murder ten people tomorrow, and tell CNN that my goal was to get a Wikipedia article out of the deal -- should I get one?

Food for thought.

Before anyone jumps down your throat for WP:FORUM (and someone probably will), let me say most editors mostly likely agree with you on a strictly emotional level, but this is, after all, an encyclopedia, which exists for the sole purpose of preserving and disseminating information. We can't omit James Holmes anymore than we could Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden. And just as equal food for thought: history repeats itself because we refuse to learn. Actively ignoring tragedy isn't an answer. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is likely no or only an infinitesimal chance that the Aurora shooting will be excluded from this article. I believe it should stay in the article. The shooting is an notable event and is well sourced. It is in the article under the '"Release"' section which is an apt place for the episode, as it is by far the most noteworthy facet of the premier night. Holmes' yearning for fame or recognition notwithstanding, Wikipedia does not deal with circumventing the satiation of persons such as James Holmes. Holmes will be conferred just punishment for his actions and that should satiate people revolted by Holmes' actions.--Ziggypowe (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned, but the entry on the shooting should be kept small and near the bottom of the page. It should not be allowed to dominate this article. Attempts to expand it should be taken over to the 2012 Aurora shooting page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt there will be much more information that could reasonably be added to this article concerning the shooting. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, I am removing mention of the event from the lead which has little relevance to the film. GDallimore (Talk) 13:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

the misunderstanding and misuse of the term anarchy

the anarchy reference should be removed from the plot description.

"The rich and powerful are dragged from their homes and put before a show trial presided over by Jonathan Crane, where they are given the choice between death or exile, and the city further regresses into a state of anarchy."

it is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. in fact it get's it backwards. we see batman lighting a fire to inspire the people to defy the warlord bain and catwoman inspired by batman to practice mutual aid instead of pursuing her own selfish ends. these are examples of anarchism, not bain's dictatorship over gothem. also one does not regress into anarchy from gothom's prior state being that of draconian police state created by the dent act. that would be progress not regress. Xylon.doulas (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. The use of the term in the article refers to anarchy, a society without a publicly enforced government. It does not refer to anarchism, the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. The use of the term "anarchy" is appropriate, because there is lawlessness in Gotham at the time; "anarchy" and "lawlessness" are synonymous as there is no police force or judicial system to speak of.

Likewise, "regress" is intended as a synonym of "descend", which is to say that the situation in Gotham further deterioriates once the rich and powerful are put before the kangaroo court and executed or driven out of the city. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

your logic escapes me. if they are put in kangaroo courts this would imply a system of draconian law, not lawlessness. in this situation there is a warlord government in place that it is highly disciplined and runs everything. it is just a new governance of gothem with a different set of procedural law that most would view as unjust. the term anarchy does not apply. Xylon.doulas (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what a kangaroo court actually is? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be so much simpler to avoid the use of the "anarchy" term altogether? Because it's one of those terms where you'll never make everyone happy. When I saw it I immediately cocked an eyebrow because at no point in the movie did Gotham come off to me as "in a state of anarchy". This is less egregious than when Joker directly misuses the term in The Dark Knight, but still. The popular definitions of anarchy (little-a anarchy) is either "A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority", which is not the case because clearly, Bane and his cronies coupled with Scarecrow's makeshift court system are the de facto authorities in Gotham at the time, or, "Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual", which, while there is no government existent in Gotham at the time, there is certainly also not "absolute freedom of the individual". Either way, the "anarchy" term here seems out of place. As far as a suggested re-wording, I would go with "After an attempt to sneak Special Forces soldiers into the city fails, the national government blockades Gotham, and the city further regresses into warlordism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.108.15 (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy also means "confusion and disorder" (dictionary.com). DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And that is the intended use of the word. Furthermore, nothing in the article indicates that Gotham has adopted the political ideology of anarchism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

this is completely false. this article links to the political ideology of anarchism from the page. as for the definition of "confusion and disorder" i would say it does not apply because bain's forces are highly disciplined i would say even more ordered than that gothem's former police force who are shown at times onscreen defying the orders of their ranking officer. even if "confusion and disorder" did apply, this definition should not be used in the article anyway because it is POV on anarchist philosophy. Xylon.doulas (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read carefully. The first paragraph of anarchy says that there are several definitions of "anarchy", one of which has nothing to do with the traditional definition, which is the anarchist philosophy which mention. Sorry that the English language has evolved a definition that you don't agree with. (Also see Butterfly effect in popular culture, Schrodinger's cat in popular culture, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, i am well aware that the word is commonly used as a pejorative that demonstrates ones ignorance and POV of the subject. i do not understand why it is so important to leave this weasel word in an encyclopedia entry that has nothing to do with the subject. please fallow wikipedia's NPOV guidelines and remove it from the article. Xylon.doulas (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why it links to that page. It shouldn't, and it was never intended to link to any page. Thank you for pointing that out - I've adjusted it accordingly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it is a good step in the right direction but it does not fix the problem. Xylon.doulas (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like your edit has been relinked to anarchism. i would guess because it is a confusing weasel word that misleads people. Xylon.doulas (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to "lawlessness". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it's better but it's is still untrue. gothom became a new city-state with a military dictatorship that patrols and keeps order to the best of there abilities, arresting and giving trial in a new kangaroo court for political supporters of the prior government in order to protect their new government from dissidents. it is not lawlessness it is martial law. Xylon.doulas (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

ifilmish.com says On the whole “ARISE” is full of rise-factors.Don't miss watching it for second time.

Donorvicky (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I assume you'd like that added, but you haven't made a case for adding it. What's especially noteworthy or reliable about ifilmish.com? Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Could we please make the Reception a subsection under release? Also grosses: $67.4 - $30.6 = 36.8 + 77.2 = $114 million worldwide as of Friday. (according to [4]68.39.100.32 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot discussion

• The Plot section currently states "Both Gordon and Blake—who has deduced Batman's identity—implore Bruce to return as Batman". How can this be reworded to indicate that only Blake deduced Batman's identity, while Gordon spoke to Batman without knowing who he was? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Easy enough - "Both Blake—who has deduced Batman's identity—and Gordon implore Bruce to return as Batman". 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Better, but one could infer from "Gordon implore Bruce" that Gordon knows he's talking to Bruce Wayne. GoingBatty (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• It also states "He steals Bruce's arsenal". However, the items were being collected by Fox. GoingBatty (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They're still Bruce Wayne's property. They were built with his money. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Bruce's money or Wayne Enterprises money? GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Considering that Bruce Wayne owns Wayne Enterprises, it is ultimately his money that was spent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Wasn't Bruce's shares liquidated? QValintyne (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Then what do you propose is a better wording? They were developed by Lucius Fox on behalf of Bruce Wayne, using Wayne's money. Nobody else had any knowledge of or use for the arsenal. For all intents and purposes, they belonged to Bruce Wayne. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
          • That's actually a really good point. Even though Bruce had lost his stake in the company, the arsenal continued to be developed using Wayne funds. The arsenal does belong to Bruce (and is kept by Fox), but Bruce no longer has any money in Wayne Enterprises at that point.

So basically, "Bruce's arsenal" is correct. QValintyne (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And the film did make it pretty clear that the equipment in the arsenal had been developed before Bruce Wayne went bankrupt. Fox simply consolidated it to one location because he knew the company was losing money. If one of the subsidiaries Fox used to develop the arsenal was closed before he could get the equipment out, he would no longer have control over it and the arsenal could fall into the wrong hands.

Besides, I don't realistically see who else we could describe the arsenal as beloning to. The "Wayne Enterprises arsenal" is perhaps the only one that comes close, and even then, it's still Bruce Wayne's by way of his company. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote with shooting

Is the Nolan quote really necessary to include in the Aurora shooting section? It's not direct information regarding the actual shooting, and should be added under the reactions section of 2012_aurora_shooting. ItalA19 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is apt, considering it is quote from the director of the subject film of the article. Nolan's reaction may be one of the most germane reactions for this article.--Ziggypowe (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nolan's quote is necessary if the section on Aurora stays. The quote helps give the section relevance to being featured in the article; the shooting itself was unrelated to the film, but the director chose to make a statement offering his condolences and cancelled the Paris premiere (along with other scheduled cast appearances) out of respect for those involved. QValintyne (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it gives the section relevance. The section is relevant because it was a significant outburst of violence that occurred during the film, not because of the later reaction it provoked from people related to the film. This alone ties it intimately from the film. The way it seems now, the quote is overlong (for the section) and meant to be an emotional attachment to the section. Wikipedia has no business attaching emotion to an informational article.ItalA19 (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The reaction is important to mention because it affected both the promotion and (possibly) the success of the film. The "emotional response" from Nolan is relevant. It'd be like saying his response to Heath Ledger's death is irrelevant to that article. QValintyne (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant argument. That was a small quote in the cast section. This quote dominates the entire section and responds to an incident INDIRECTLY related to the actual film. Do you see the distinction? ItalA19 (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In that mindset, the shooting would also be INDIRECTLY related to the movie. The shooting is not related to the actual film at all either.

See the distinction? QValintyne (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. As you said, the shooting affected the "promotion and the success of the film". The quote does not. This isn't something I'm overly concerned about, so if it's that important (in your opinion), this will be my last post regarding this issue. If anyone else has any commentary, it's welcomed.ItalA19 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Nolan quote is out of place and dominates this section, and really belongs in the main article for the shooting. It looks like an emotional papering over of the shooting. 64.148.0.109 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

Please change "Alfred witnesses Bruce and Selina together alive in a café in Italy" to "Alfred either witnesses Bruce and Selina together alive in a café in Italy, or Bruce is dead and this a fantasy as alluded to earlier in the film, leaving the fate of Batman/Bruce up to the viewer to decide.

94.5.230.161 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll be changed if you can cite a reliable source that says that the narrative is unreliable and instead depicts a fantasy scene. DonQuixote (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's such a preposterous notion that that was a fantasy scene. The thing w/ the autopilot makes it clear the death was faked, where you would get the notion that Alfred was imagining it, I don't know.ScarletSpiderfan (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that he bails out and gets in another Bat. You see him in the Bat closing his eyes with 5 seconds to go before the NUCLEAR BLAST. All I am asking is for the synopsis to be fair and show that neither ending is set in stone, and there is ambiguity there. As the scene in Italy plays out EXACTLY as Alfred said it has in the past, the film is itself indicating that it COULD be a fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎94.5.230.161 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interpretation. The plot summary accurately states that the scene depicts Alfred seeing Bruce in a cafe. It does not state that he escaped the explosion, and it does not state that the scene is a fantasy. So the ambiguity is still present for the audience. DonQuixote (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your time. I just felt the sentence "Alfred witnesses Wayne and Kyle alive together at a café" is stating he definitely survived the explosion, which considering the ambiguity, he may not have done. Maybe a sentence along the lines of "there is a scene showing Alfred apparently seeing Bruce with Selina which may or may or may not indicate he survived the explosion".

On the Blade Runner page, you do not confirm if Deckard is a replicant or not. I feel the same level of ambiguity applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.230.161 (talk • contribs)

"May or may not" is an interpretation. All that can be stated without citing a reliable source is that Alfred sees him in a cafe.

Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and most importantly Blade Runner cites reliable sources regarding the above interpretations. DonQuixote (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Please drop the word 'alive' from the sentence. I am not disputing that he is seen, just the implication of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.230.161 (talk • contribs)

Why? It's stated near the end of the movie that Bruce fixed the broken autopilot MONTHS before the ending, which makes it abundantly clear that he was able to get out in time and that he isn't dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.200.204 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfred doesn't see him dead or unconscious or whatever, he sees him alive. Assuming that it's a fantasy scene is interpretation that requires the citation of a reliable source. Assuming that the narrative depicts a real event in the world of the narrative is the default. (See Philosophic burden of proof.) DonQuixote (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This article more or less confirms that Nolan had no intention of killing Batman. Christian Bale also says that he personally didn't want to see Batman die either. While this article is a tad ambiguous and not as much of a "big confirm" that many desire, it does help us get closer to a consensus. QValintyne (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Another article from Anne Hathaway's point of view regarding the matter. QValintyne (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

Perhaps something could be put into the last lines of the plot to include where Gordon asks Batman for his identity before he flies away in the Bat. Bruce's reference to his memory of Gordon placing his coat around Bruce's shoulders as a child gives a realization to Gordon that Bruce Wayne is Batman. This is similar to Batman Begins where Rachel realizes Batman's identity after he repeats the statement she originally made "its what I do that defines me".

Also I think the shot where Gordon is on the roof of the police station to find a new Bat Signal has been places should be included, as it gives him the knowledge that Bruce is still alive.(Garethwoolfall (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

while i agree all the above should be added i just wanted to mention that the new bat signal does not necessarly (god i hate english) mean that Bruce was saying he was alive. it could be a symbol meaning that gotham will always have a protector. adding this with John Drake finding the bat cave at the end symbolises to me a passing of the torch to Robin while he permantly retires. of course being the finale with no chance of a sequal leaves these little things at the end in the dark. same as how they never did or will explain how bane discovered R&D which wa slocked up, off the books and only Bruce and Fox ever knew of it. plot holes. got to love them152.91.9.153 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We could mention that Gordon sees the new Bat-Signal, any discussion of who repaired/replaced it is speculation. GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

This following credit needs to be added in the Music section.

Music director Hans Zimmer also thanked for the Indian Music director A.R.Rahman for his inputs for the movie.

Iamsriramk (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reliable source for this, so we can determine if this is notable enough to include in the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

The dark knight raises underground prison portions are taken at Jodhpur in rajastan in India

Iamsriramk (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source so that we can include it. DonQuixote (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary is not supposed to give away film is it?

I think the plot how it's written is more like a summary of the film which gives away the whole story and ruins it for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.245 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Spoiler. DonQuixote (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot given is perfectly acceptable. It's not excessively long (709 words, with the generally acceptable range being 400-700), and outlines the plot as necessary. Wikipedia guidelines state that "all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article". If you're looking for a marketing-style blurb, then the Plot section of the film's article is not designed to provide. drewmunn (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section for this is poorly written. Obviously we don't need the entire script or ever a screen play, but the plot summary is lacking a ton of details for a nearly three hour film. I will attempt to rewrite it tomorrow to better organize it both chronologically and with better detail. Unless someone spearheads this before me. This is likely to be one of the biggest movies ever release, the most important part of the article should at least get close attention. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"This is likely to be one of the biggest movies ever released" is no excuse for ignoring the word limit under WP:FILMPLOT. Anything over 700 words will be reverted on sight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT does not set a hard limit at 700 words. It specifically says that plot summaries can be longer under allowable circumstances. The section of Wikipedia policy quoted: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." Summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. This is a guideline, not necessarily a hard rule. Considering the length of this movie, as I already pointed out and a considerable back story involved in this story's plot, I think it's fair to say that this movie does have a complicated plot which makes it hard to squeeze into that suggested range. Not that it can't be. But it doesn't give the plot justice to leave out important detail just to satisfy a suggestive policy. And since you're so concerned with rules, I'll share 2 with you. From WP:5P (which is basically the constitution as far as WP is concerned. Pillar #5 Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course we don't want a bloated summary, but it's a bit harsh to say "Anything over 700 words will be reverted on sight." Like everything aside from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not an iron-clad rule. (I for one think a really good plot summary could be written in half the space already dedicated to it in this page; it's the unnecessarily hard line I find to be off-putting rather than me feeling a need to expand the summary further). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's harsh, but look at the language he uses - "lacking a ton of details" and "organise it chronologically and with better detail". Given the length of the film and the intricate plot, I'm willing to bet that Aspenti is thinking of something 1400 words in length. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are you to say with such conviction how I would write this article. You are out of line. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Who am I? I'm the guy who wrote the plot outline that you so indelicately described as "poorly written". I know I don't own that content, but a little appreciation goes a long way. Instead of saying "it's poorly written", would it have killed you to say "it's a good start, but it really needs more"? For you to attack someone's work and then criticise them for attacking your own is deeply hypocritical. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While ASPENSTI was a bit steadfast in calling the article "poorly written" and Prisonermonkeys is a little stiff in not allowing flexibility over the word guideline, I find some truth in both arguments.

The article is pretty much in order to the events in how they happen. Of course we ignore the "now we cut to Bruce, now we cut to this story arc, etc." We're reading a plot summary, not a beat by beat chronological rehash of the film. Wikipedia articles are often lampooned for being hilariously over-explained and detailed. As the plot stands now, I personally feel it explains everything in a way that's easily digestible for someone to read. I don't want to spend more time reading about a film than it takes for me to actually watch it. QValintyne (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said the article was poorly written, only the Plot subsection. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on this "the plot summary is lacking a ton of details for a nearly three hour film." It's length is not a matter of concern. If it was three hours of someone staring at a wall it wouldn't require 800 words to detail that. This is not a complex film regardless of how long it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary section

Just noting that the commentary section currently is a "negative political interoperations" section or rather a coatrack for negative critique. A reception section is fine as long as it is NPOV, currently this is neither a reception section nor NPOV--Cailil ^talk 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not sure why this "Commentary" section is even in the article. It's just a random jumble of opinions that for some reason have been given their own section. ItalA19 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the Letterman incident?

Tomer T (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What Letterman incident? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He's talking about the Letterman/Hathaway interview. It's easily found on Google. I doubt it belongs in the article. Tng88 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It was on my mind all along when I watched the film, and I thought I could have read on the article whether or not this was a publicity trick or an innocent mistake by Letterman. Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)