Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Note: A lot of people are moving cast and characters around. Unless there is a source from Warner Bros, please do not move them to the confirmed section Always cite your sources. Shane (talk/contrib) 01:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Redirecting Titles

Don't redirect any of the possible titles shown in the article to the page. If you do this, it may be far too late to change the title if the film releases with one of the titles in the article. Leader Vladimir

Is there any chance that they will use the story line from the unfinished film Batman Triumphant?

Merge Notice

Having read the poorly written and underused other page batman begins sequel, I support the merge of the two, so long as that article, BBS, redirects here to UBBS, for the ease of finding by new Wikiusers. Once the sequel is titled, we can move this article there, with a redirect.ThuranX 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Put this page under protection

Jack Black as The Joker, I believe that's more bullsh*t then that brown stuff that comes out of a bull's butt. And yet that unregistered user keeps putting it up there. It's the same with the likes of Mark Hamil or Robin Williams. Now I know I keep putting Sandler up there but it's because Sandler has confirmed this on his website. Unlike the other three, so I sugest we put this page under protection from the new and unregistered users of wikipedia.


Frankie Muniz as Robin. WTH? Isnt he like 20? DG was 8 when Batman started training him... Anycase, good page

I removed the unfounded bullshit about "new characters." Nothing substantial can be found on these comicbook sites. lets keep this page closed until official releases from Warner Brothers are given to the press

Don't qoute me, but I think Robin Williams turned down the role of the Riddler in Batman Forever, maybe that's why his name is popping up.70.35.90.142 06:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:70.35.90.142: Dick Grayson was eight when Batman started training him in Pre-Crisis continuity. Following the Crisis On Infinite Earths, his origin was changed to that of Batman: Dark Victory. In that version, which is now been accepted as canonical since it follows Year One and Long Halloween, Dick Grayson was 12 when he started training for and became Robin. Since he was adopted at 12 in terms of Post-Crisis following events of YO and TLH, Batman would have to have been 25 or 26, depending on what month his birthday was and if it was his second or third year as Batman. Many believe the year he became Robin was Year Two; as the Long Halloween story takes place a few months after the events of Year One and continues into Year Two. Then, Year Two involves the Hangman murders and Robin's origins. For a brief reminder of the events in terms of years, let's review.

  • 35 Years Ago: Bruce Wayne is born.
  • 29 Years Ago: Bruce falls into the Batcave at age six.
  • 26 Years Ago: Thomas and Martha Wayne are murdered by Joe Chill.
  • 22/21 Years Ago: Dick Grayson is born into the Flying Grayson parents.
  • 19/20 Years Ago: Jason Todd is born.
  • 17 Years Ago: Tim Drake is born to Jack and Mary Drake.
  • 16 Years Ago: Bruce Wayne travels for seven years over the world learning martial arts. (NOTE: He would be 18 then, seven years later, he is 25 when he debuts in Gotham. Batman Begins confirms this.)
  • Ten Years Ago: Bruce Wayne debuts as Batman and takes down Carmine Falcone during the events of Batman: Year One.

- Summer-Onwards of Nine Years Ago: Batman: The Long Halloween starts to unfold.

  • Nine Years Ago: Alberto Falcone is revealed to be Holiday; birth of Two-Face. Batman: Dark Victory begins. Dick Grayson's parents are murdered and he is taken in by Bruce Wayne. Barbra Gordon is paralyzed by the Joker and becomes Oracle.
  • 5 Years Ago: Dick Grayson drops the mantle of Robin and becomes Nightwing. Batman takes in Jason Todd that same year to become Robin. Jason dies that same year by the hands of the Joker.
  • 4 Years Ago: Tim Drake becomes Robin. Batman: KnightFall, Knightquest and Knightsend take place that same year. Dick dons the role of Batman briefly after Jean-Paul Azreal before Batman returns.
  • 3 Years Ago: Batman: No Man's Land takes place and lasts for one year.
  • 2 Years Ago: Batman: Hush takes place over the space of a few months. Stephanie Brown briefly becomes Robin before Tim returns to the role.
  • 1 Year Ago: Jason Todd returns as the Red Hood, Bludhaven is destroyed, the Spoiler dies due to Black Mask, Tim Drake's father is murdered, and the Battle of Metropolis and Infinite Crisis take place all in the same year. Superboy dies at the end of the battle.
  • 12 Months Ago: Batman approaches Harvey Dent with the idea of watching Gotham.
  • 10 Months Ago: After two months training Dent, Batman and Robin leave with Nightwing to rebuild Batman.
  • 3 Months Ago: Tim Drake returns to Gotham earlier than Batman and moves into Wayne Manor's stable house.
  • 1 Month Ago: Bruce Wayne comes back home to Gotham City.
  • Today: Batman and Robin officially return to crime-fighting. Dick finds Jason Todd in New York City as Nightwing, Tim accepts the offer of adoption, etc.

As you can see, in today's continuity, Dick was only 12 when he began as Robin, Jason was about 14 or 15, and Tim was 13 when he became Robin about 4 years ago. Thus, Dick is either 21 or 22, Jason would be 19 or 20, and Tim recently turned 17 before he officially returned as Robin, since he turned 16 just before Infinite Crisis. Bruce Wayne is approximately 35 years old.

As for the Robin Williams and Frankie Muniz rumors, I wouldn't believe them. Muniz will be almost 30 before they finally bring Robin into the franchise, so it will be an actor who can fit the part, a kid of 12 or 13 probably.

Jonathan.Bruce 11:04 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This article is in need of citations. If they aren't provided soon, I'm going to start removing uncited rumors. CovenantD 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to limit rumors to those which can be substantiated by reliable sites and articles. Those listings which continue to be based on 'also supposedly in the running/mix/ my cousin's cousin...; will be removed.ThuranX 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The rumored choices

We need to settle this childish edit/revert war. Sandler's name is ONLY mentioned inasmuch as he's cited as REPRESENTATIVE of the comedic names flying around in Hollywood. Until we see something more tangible regarding ANY actor, we should NOT report them. For example: 'A guy in hollywood told another guy who told me so i sent it to this rumor site that X,Y, and Z are just three of the KIND of guys trying to grow batwings out of their butts to be the new batman" is NOT substantial. "Actor QRS said on this show or that show that when his agent went to put his name in, his agent bumped into TUV's agent, who was also putting in TUV's name, and who said that GHI had been making noise about it." This rumor, unlike the previous, at least gives a tangible chain to the rumor, by identifying those who said it back a number of steps, as well as having reasonable credibility, I.E. three actors and two agents competing for the role, instead of the pool cleaner's brother's barrista. That said, I suggest that the link being repeatedly cited for Sandler be dropped, and any other actors whose listing are reliant on the same link should be dropped. If no other links are provided to substantiate, I'll whittle the page down in the next two days to reflect only credible reports.ThuranX 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I REPEAT: NO Adam Sandler without a clear and distinct reference to him. A throwaway at the end of a quote stating that the rumors in Hollywood include a 'Sandler', without even a first name, is not enough. A quote directly referencing the level of interest in Sandler by execs or filmmakers, or even a statement of his own interest in a role in the film, would be sufficient. Lacking that, Sandler stays off. This is not an anti-Sandler thing, it's simply that if we threw up every 'dude, a guy at a cafe on Rodeo said that his manicurist heard that blah blah blah." FOAF is not substantial enough to bear repeating on Wikipedia. Direct quotes, or repeated sourcing is.ThuranX 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, but the editor responsible for reinserting this bit has never responded to anything on a talk page, not even their own. They even refused to include a reference for the first couple of weeks. I think we just have to be diligent about reverting unreliable sources. CovenantD 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste time picking fights, just focus and work on the article.ThuranX 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Look here CovenantD on this website there have been others who have demanded citation and when I contribute using information I saw off Entertainment News programs or statements in Talk Show interviews they all don't mind. So why don't you do the same

I can contribute too you know—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffyDuck619 (talk • contribs)

Of course you can. However, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources before you try to insert uncited rumors again. CovenantD 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Daffy, I know you don't understand this concept, so I'll try it in small words. You can put your words here, but there are rules. One rule is that stuff you put here should either be true, or at least you believe it to be true, and either way, you need to provide evidence. You don't believe in that, so we have a problem. When you start to actually give REAL citations, we might get somewhere. But you don't give air-dates on the tv shows you pretend to see, and you keep using a rumor about a rumor, which two other editors on this article have decided is too specious to restate here on Wikipedia. I recommend that you wait until somethign you can link to which is stronger than a rumor about a rumor is found on the internet, or research the proper citation of a TV show. Best of all, find a transcript of the show, or a video capture clip somewhere which you can provide a link to. I know you've gto a thing for supporting Adam Sandler, but you need to stop it here. At this point, your behavior is gettign intolerable, and I will ask for an administrator to look this over if you can't accept that we want reasonable citations. You don't give us those. You didn't get by with a cited rumor of a rumor, so now your'e citing some Australian TV show, which cannot be substantiated and verified by most editors. Until you can cite properly, and cite valid, verifiable material, you will find your contributions will continue to be reverted out. ThuranX 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If this habit if DaffyDuck619's of posting unsourced material, or edit warring continues, I think it'll be time for an arbitration, citing the consues violations, the 3 revert rule, and so on.ThuranX 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As challenged by Daffy, here are the first names of some actors found on an IMDb simple search for 'Sandler', in order of appearance in the list: Andrew, Jared, Henry, Marc, Ethan, Scott, Todd, Zachary, Stan, Bobby, Jack, Lou, Robert, Tony, Justin, Tony (again), Gera, Eli, Don, Albert, and Mike. That's just the actors with the surname 'Sandler' listed on IMDb. There are probably more out there. Again, I state: Until a valid, specific and reliable citation can be found, Adam Sandler will be reverted.ThuranX 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

proposed fan-made poster

I added a file (11 KB) of a proposed poster, showing the Joker based on Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the 1928 (1927 ?) film The Man who Laughs.

I do not know who created the picture. Feel free to use it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Veidtasjoker.jpg

--Haris 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

edits by: 58.165.74.85

Of these ten edits, two contradict each other (the second or thid edit made a note that scarecrow won't be back, the last says he will, then cites a report that some sketches of a variant mask for the first movie, better matching the action figure, were seen by the author ofthe cited article). Of the other edits, some use wiki as a crystal ball, which future film pages MUST studiously avoid. Do not get intot he third batman film on here. The rest of the casting and plot rumors are unsourced, and some contradict other rumors out there. Bob Hoskins, for example, was rumored to be in the running against philip seymour hoffman for the Penguin, not Boss Maroni. If this has changed, cite a page about it.ThuranX 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations using batmanonfilm.com

I'd like to see more diverse citation. Wiki's UBBS should NOT be a barding up of each rumor on BoF. Whenever possible, we should work to find more original citation. Cite who BoF cites, or find independent confirmation. BoF makes it's way off posting EVERY rumor it can, to increase traffic and ad clicks. They do some great work, but Wiki editors can do better. Let's make a concerted effort to encourage better citations. ThuranX 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to the editors in the "New characters" section, hopefully to limit additional unvalid rumors. Expand on the note if you want; it could save us a lot of grief in the time leading up to actual movie announcements. Erik 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Heath Ledger as The Joker

It seems fairly verified that Heath Ledger is The Joker, according to this [1]. It makes sense that this would be announced at Comic-Con 2006, but I'm trying to find more sources for verification. My question is how to deal with all the casting rumors about The Joker leading up to this announcement? Erik 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't count that as a "reliable source." Perhaps if they mentioned where on the floor, or from whom, but the way it reads now it's nothing more than another rumor. CovenantD 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Until such time as a verified 'official announcement'/'official confirmation' is released, Ledger should stay on the rumor list, and I will edit as such repeatedly. It's not that I doubt the Good Faith efforts of other editors, but that, as discussed, we need to hold to a reasonably good standard of editorship and citation. ThuranX 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think, in all honesty, for the 2 years I have been editing Wikipédia (just see my user page in Français) that the page doesn't reflect the fact that EVERYONE in the buisiness now know Heath Ledger is the new Joker. Batman-on-film, Latino Review, IGN did confirm this threw the grapevines. Although it should be noted no official confirmation was issued by the studio, Heath Ledger's status ain't one like P. Bettany or Lachy Hulme. Moreso, the comment I made was pretty appropriate before someone reverted it. --Niptium 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Batman-on-Film cited LatinoReview.com. IGN did the same. I just checked, so it's not three sources verifying Heath Ledger as the Joker. LatinoReview.com is the basis of this rumor, if you trackback any other "Heath Ledger announcement" sources. Heath Ledger is nothing more than a rumor until an announcement is made. --Erik 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm apparently just 'someone' as well as 'Ashkenazi'. Solving your problems with a page with racist personal attacks will NOT get you anywhere. Accept that we're holding this page to a reasonable standard of citation, find a valid citation that doesn't fall apart under mild scrutiny, such as a direct quote from Christopher Nolan, Julius Schwartz, or any other 'expert' with qualifications to genuinely be 'in the know'. On a tangential note, if you ever leave another bigoted anti-semitic attack on my talk page, I will submit it for arbitration.ThuranX 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 :: It would be more appropriate that LatinoReview started the bal and Batman on Film picked it up as IGN did - just like you said. But now, Batman-on-Film (very reliable) is now convinced that this rumor is true after checking out with their own sources. It's not bots citing one another but a 2nd source confirming what another dug up.
I recently revamped the article, and I got rid of a lot of bad information from Batman-on-Film, so I haven't experienced any kind of reliability from that particular site. Batman-on-Film does not have a valid second source "confirming" the LatinoReview.com announcement, which doesn't appear to be a valid source in itself. The same goes for IGN. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on credible information, so even if the Heath Ledger rumor is true, a valid source is necessary to report him as the new Joker. Just play the waiting game -- let the aftermath of Comic-Con die down and see if his name still pops up from any valid sources. --Erik 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And as far as bigotry and racism terms being thrown around for no good reason (for I called you Mr Ashkenazi) - you should check out the definition of the word racism before throwing words you can't really use. If I were writing I was gay on my User page and someone pointed it out by calling me Mr Gay I wouldn't go beserk crying for racism and homophobe. I wonder if I called you Mr Scotland I would've had the same response. Need theatricality in your life ? --Niptium 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your bigotries, I think it's clear, we're not accepting anythign that goes back to LatinoReview. The fact that Batman on Film claims to have a secret source that confirms LR, but won't reveal anything giving their 'source' credibility, means it's not up to the standards we've asked for here. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Read the talk, read the history. There are two other editors here on the talk of the same mind, and there are others in the history. ThuranX 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm disapointed in the conviviality of the english version of Wikipedia. It's not up to the Wikipédia I know. At least I don't get answered with racism subpoena and drama queens. And as far as this article goes, I'm a pretty understanding gentleman, I'll bow out in front of the majority and the great work that has been done so far. --Niptium 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to cite this as an example of why Batman-on-Film, like other rumor mills, is not a certifiable source: "I can confirm (as I did a few weeks ago) that while an offer has been made to Heath Ledger, Ledger has not signed any deal, and is reluctant to do so (at the moment.) Ledger is not a lock." Wikipedia, including this article, is not meant to be a source of breaking news but a source of well-informed news. As said before, any news must have valid citations, and not the word of "scoopers". --Erik 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Revamped article

  • Revised the opening paragraph to identify the movie's background for newcomers
  • Removed plot suggestions, as citations pointed to speculative sources
  • Cleaned up cast of "returning characters", cited more directly
  • Removed "new character" entries about Talia al Ghul and Catwoman due to lack of verifiable sources
  • Went through Two-Face candidates and reduced number to actual considerations or responses by actors themselves
  • Went through Joker candidates and reduced number to actual considerations or responses by actors themselves

I have found Batman-on-Film.com to be a relatively poor source, rampant with speculative rumors. Casting news from "scoopers" or "insiders" from that site or a similar site should not be added without a verifiable news source. --Erik 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

great work overall. I'm tempted to run down a few more of the rumored folks and see what's what, but overall, youv'e done an excellent job of giving a well-timed overhaul to this page. Now, so long as no one reverts it to the last Adam Sandler rumor, we'll be fine to build this page up again stronger, better. We have the money, we have the technology, we can rebuild him.... it. ThuranX 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article's links from embedded citations to footnote references. If this is a problem, let me know. It seems more professional to cite this way. Also, I think that Jake Gyllenhaal should be removed from the list of rumored players for Harvey Dent, as nothing I've found online is a verifiable source. In addition, is it even worth keeping Heath Ledger? Even if there was interest in Ledger as Joker, it seems inappropriate to keep him on the list of possibilities without any kind of verification from the studio, director, or actor himself, as the other possible players have responded in some way. (If we did go ahead with this, it may not be necessary to have the "Names in bold indicate actors who have expressed interest in the role" footnote.) --Erik 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the refer's better this way, agreed. As for Gyllenhaal, I suspect that no matter how much we discuss the need for solid cites here, we'll just be setting up for more and more edit wars as more and more various fan-boys continue to add their favorite pick, no matter the lack of citable evidence. Between us, we waste our 3 reverts a day on heath Ledger already. If we step too far, we'll get bit. Soome whiner with a closet full of heath or jake posters will complain on the 3R rule or something, and the page will rot out. Leave Gyllenhaal up for a while, till the Ledger stuff wears off or gets confirmed.ThuranX 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvey Dent

Template:Spoiler If you go to the Harvey Dent article, you will see a soft redirect to Two-Face that "exists to avoid revealing a critical plot twist without warning." Since this is the case, it's my suggestion that Harvey Dent not be identified as Two-Face outside of spoiler-marked sections. I am sure that most Batman fans would know that Harvey Dent = Two-Face, but we should conceal the identity for the sake of casual moviegoers who come across this film article. If they want to find out who Harvey Dent is, they can decide whether to follow through with the soft redirect. Is this agreeable? --Erik 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna disagree. Even if you don't know, it's NOT a spoiler. Not knowing Superman is Clark isn't a spoiler. It's meeting the character. I'd say that PLOT is spoil-able, while generally characters aren't. I think that a majority of the movie-going audience will have seen enough of the many mass media versions of two-face to know who Two-Face is, and that anyone who doesn't will benefit more by knowing than find it a spoiler.ThuranX 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, although I'm curious as to why there is a soft redirect at all. I'll revert the article to mention Two-Face again. --Erik 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And soylent green is people, sometimes its hard to keep plot twist from people when they are well enough known. As long as the page itself doesnt mention 2face (since as far as ive seen in press releaces his charecter isnt set to be a villian in this one) its not really nesicary to play the redirect game.--82.34.196.155 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you here the news? John Cusack is being rumored to being up for the role! I doubt it could happen, as Harvey Dent is a few years older than Batman in the comics. Since Batman is starting out 25, Dent should be somewhere around 26-30, as a mentor to Bats in a way. Look at these choices:
  • Josh Lucas - Seems to be interested in the role.
  • Jake Gyllenhaal - Hey, he was almost Spider-Man and Batman once before. He looks the part and is the right age for the character (he'll be 27 by the film's release). Since he hasn't talked about the part to the press or on the Internet, just as Heath Leger never did, maybe he's in talks already....
  • Liev Schreiber says he doesn't know a thing about it, that it's all just fan speculation.
  • Joaquin Phoenix could be another candidate, probably due to his role as Johnny Cash in Walk The Line. Established as playing conflicted men with a dark side, he could very well fit the role...
  • Finally John Cusack. First off, he's too old to play Dent (Cusack's 40 now). Dent is mid to late twenties at this point in time, and he needs to be played by someone young, not too old!

(The above edit was made at 10:45, 9 August 2006, by 156.34.206.192 ) Template:Endspoiler

Should Guy Pierce also be mentioned as a canidate to play Two Face, as he was considered to play the role of Harvey Dent in Batman Begins, but his character was not used. Seeing as Dent is supposed to appear in "The Dark Knight", would it be safe to list Guy Pierce as a canidate for the role, or would that be too speculative at the time being?66.24.224.205 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

His casting is notible enough to warrant a meant in the article, but since he hasn't been mentioned for the role since then, he probably shouldn't be listed a possible candidate. Maybe a little thing in the trivia section. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Boss Maroni

While I believe in the good faith of the edits adding maroni, the IMDb page is a grammatically poor submission by an anonymous poster. Much as I'd like to delete it, I'm going to give it a couple days to materialize further, then delete. Thoughts?ThuranX 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. I've seen fake submissions to IMDb, such as Ed Norton portraying "John Bauer" on IMDb's 24 Season 5 cast list. Imagine my shock when it didn't pan out. I've also seen rumors of Salvatore Maroni (as well as Roman Sionis a.k.a. Black Mask) on sites such as BOF and MoviesOnline, but nothing credible. --Erik 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

A user attempted to change the article to the title, "The Dark Knight." I reverted partially because it's unverified and partially because it was not a clean job of doing so. I looked into the new title, and apparently this Comic Book Resources article mentioned the new title and the confirmation of Heath Ledger as the Joker. There is supposed to be a press release from Warner Bros. on Tuesday morning about all this, so until the studio goes public with this news, these changes should not yet be implemented. --Erik 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, obviously this is the wrong title for the movie. The true film article, "The Dark Knight", was already created, thus a move to that article title was not possible. I don't have any expertise in moving pages, so how can we fix this so it's The Dark Knight and not The Dark Night? --Erik 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am fixing the problem. Please wait. --Shane (talk/contrib) 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Now fixed. --Shane (talk/contrib) 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Will the "dark knight" title be the title or a subtitle?

This is the title.

Oh. I was thinking something like: Batman II: The dark knight. but oh well.--67.140.26.106 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)JasonX80


"Batman: The Dark Night", "Batman, The Dark Knight", "Batman The Dark Knight" ?

As far as I know, there is no mention of "Batman" in the sequel's title. Like the article says, it's simply, The Dark Knight. This is one of Batman's monikers in comic canon. --Erik 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Howdy. If I may, here's how it goes.
"(The) Dark Knight" is an alias/nickname of Batman. Thus, "Dark Knight" is a redirect to him. Like The man of Steel", "The Dark Knight" became a popular term in its own right, spawning titles for two books by Frank Miller (The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again). Long story short, The Dark Knight became a redirect to DKR1. Later, when this movie title was revealed, The Dark Knight was rightly turned into a disambiguation page by a very helpful GIPU. Finally, after some minor name confusion, this movie article was properly titled. You see, the movie was named after Batman's alias in an attempt to indicate that he's now come into his own and not just "Beginning" some more or "continuing". Thus, The Dark Knight (film). Personally, I think it was an unavoidable conclusion. As for "The" being used, use of such a prefix is correct as that's the given title. Generally, removing "the" in titles is something specific to the comics wikiproject. This is part of WikiProject Film, which relaxes naming practices in favor of a movie being titled as the studio/writer(s) intended it. I'll add a redirect at Dark Knight (film), just to be thorough, though. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a wise move, since all the good titles have been used already: Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Forever. Batman & Robin just makes it sound gay. However, Batman: The Dark Knight would still be a good title. I just hope they make names in the future like Batman: The Long Halloween, Batman: The Frightening, Batman: Vengeance, Batman: Fallen Knight (Bane breaking Batman's back), Batman: Hush, and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. --Jonathan.Bruce 05:37 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Rachel Dawes

I think we should remove the word "stronger" when explaining why Holmes shall not be appearing in the next Batman. Holmes' acting talent is a matter of opinion and some would argue that she is quite accomplished in her perfomances in "Pieces of April" and "Phone Booth". I believe her performance in Batman Begins was credible and contributed to the narrative thus I think the word "stronger" should be replaced with the word "different" as measuring the strength of someone's acting is subjective and could lead to bias. --Apoc100 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless that was something an studio exect said explicitely. If it was a quote then we should find the quote, if not then I agree with you. Bignole
The Rachel Dawes citation has been iffy for me, as it comes from the "Page Six" gossip section of the New York Post. However, the quote remains true. I have not been able to find the full context of the Page Six article, but the relevant quotes are already out there. Take a look at this IMDB blotter, TVGuide.com article, and this DarkHorizons.com article. The thing is, this so-called news might be false, and Holmes may be returning as Dawes. I've noticed a few rumblings on the rumor mills about that possibility... could be speculation, or could be real. Personally, I don't see how they're going to explain Dawes's absence if Holmes doesn't come back -- the character was pretty dedicated to her goal of weeding out Gotham's criminals. Anyway, the quote seems to be true, at least in terms of coming from the Page Six citation. --Erik 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Referring to the "quote", it's still 'Colllllld...ah'. Ah well. Stronger, different; Potaytoe, Patahtoe. We should probably just say something like "upopular character; unlikely to return; different actresses have been mentioned." No need to be unnecessarily definite when working off of rumors and talking about a semi-controversial and disputible sibject. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with a change of the wording, although based on the "gossip" citation, I don't know how one could explain Holmes's situation objectively. --Erik 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, why does it say that Katie Holmes is returning, when there are reports of her quitting her acting career? Since she has a baby and all (of course, the baby has never been seen, but that's another matter).RoryS89 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89
Someone needs to check for a more up-to-date source. That was August 2005, before they even had a title, let along a script, and before anyone other than Bale had been recast. Bignole
Okay. I've corrected the cast section per these concerns. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone reverted it so that it still says she is confirmed.RoryS89 23:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89
Yeah...we cannot exactly prove otherwise just yet. You know what would own? A single question interview. "Is holmes in it?" Wam-bam done. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, until we do know, it could probably be edited a bit. I mean, shouldn't something be done about it saying she's confirmed, while she's still listed in the "Unconfirmed" section?RoryS89 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

I've moved Rachel Dawes to the Confirmed list, as producer Charles Roven is a more verifiable source (see citation) than the Page Six gossip section of the New York Post. The Page Six rumor about Katie Holmes not coming back precedes Roven's statement, so obviously the statement has more validity. However, I wasn't sure about inserting her into the Cast list or not, because even if she is signed on for a sequel, she may not necessarily reprise the role. If the wording needs to be corrected regarding this, go ahead. --Erik 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I question it's place. The link is dated to August 2005, just two months after Batman was released. A lot can occur in a year, and seeing as the only confirmed cast is Bale and Ledger, I think she still should be placed in the "unconfirmed" category. I know Roven is a reputable source, but his comments were made over a year ago, right after Begins was released. As far as he was concerned everyone was coming back. He made a comment before even a story was hashed out for the next film. Bignole
You're right. Holmes's situation is similar to Cillian Murphy, who is signed on for possible sequels, but does not know if he'll return. I moved the Rachel Dawes subsection back to Unconfirmed with an addendum about whether she would actually return or not. --Erik 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just announced!!!! Rachel Dawes is coming back in the sequel. --Jonathan.Bruce 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a link? Bignole
First, why is the date of that post listed as August 2nd? And second, SHH has said nothing of this, and they would have reported it by now for sure if it were true.RoryS89 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Working out

Okay. Uh...hey, guys. This whole "working out" is arguably rumors/spec, but I was wondering if she at least add a little mention of it in the article. Like..."sources claim" or "Holmes is reportedly exercising and some believe she is getting in shape for a role in this film". What do you all think? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why she would be working out for the role. It would make more sense that she was working out in her post-pregnancy period. The so-called source(s) is/are anonymous, so I don't think any attention should be paid to this particular citation about Holmes returning. The Roven statement seems valid enough. --Erik 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either is "valid". I agree with Erikster that her "working out" is a common thing among post pregnant women, especially celebs, and the Roven comment was made like 2 months after the first film was released and hardly concrete, seeing as they just now got a title for the movie and started working on a script and there has been no new word as to her role (aside from the working out). Bignole 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

It's becoming ridiculous how some users refuse to let us add things in this article. It doesn't belong to anyone, so stop deleting everyone's additions to the trivia. And the "everything must be cited" thing is going overboard. Citing things is okay, but it's ridiculous that you delete what is common knowledge. If you've looked at any news for this movie, you would know that fans assumed it would be called "Batman Continues". I think we need to talk about something before someone deletes it because they don't like it, or because it doesn't fit with their perfect vision of the article. Show some respect to your fellow users, and stop deleting everything that someone else writes just because you don't like it.RoryS89 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

In that case, if you are adding something that doesn't have a source then you should bring it to this page first, so that it can be agreed upon and discussed for relevancy and accuracy. Bignole 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Whining to us about what you want to add is the first step. (I kid, I kid.) I'll admit, "Continues" was a strong contender, but, in turn, it was shot down by Nolan way before the official title was confirmed. Futhermore, unless statistics could be provided, the belief in Continues is no more notible than Adam Sandler playing the Joker. If you can cite a source about it never having a chance, though, that would be a whole other story. You see, Ror, Biggy and I have noticed an insistance by some users—mostly GIPUs—to add...well...unvarified information. For us, and other Wikipedians, it's not about making a perfect article, just one that isn't riddled with spec or, worse yet, inaccuracies. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Trivia is usually "shorted" bits of source information that doesn't need it's own section. (A pretty clear definition of Trivia). However, I like to remind you all to be WP:CIVIL and remember the WP:3RR. --Shane (talk/contrib) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Before the sequel got the title The Dark Knight, the opening paragraph had a citation about Christopher Nolan saying in an interview that the title would definitely not be Batman Continues. This supports your argument that it was a "rumored" title among fans at the time. If you feel that this is a valuable addition to the entry, and I disagree, we can talk it out. If Batman Continues is permitted in the title based on fan base speculation, then we may as well add all the other Joker candidates that have ever been discussed but never actually verified by anyone -- Adam Sandler, Vincent Cassel, Steve Buscemi, Sean Penn, etc. It's my opinion that the "rumored" title doesn't fit the encyclopedic fashion of The Dark Knight, and we can see how many editors agree/disagree. --Erik 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I just think people should talk it out before deleting something at their own will. Other articles I go to have much more information, because everyone knows that a lot of information is common knowledge. These articles I speak don't have 15 citations, and yet they are much bigger than this one. I am sorry if I come across as unnecessarily anrgy, I just though that we should talk about something before removing it.RoryS89 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89
One quick thing, you cannot say that "fan opinion" is common knowledge. I was never under the impression that it would be named that. Some fans thought that because it was "Batman Begins" then "Batman Continues" would be an appropriate following title, because of the title of the original. But that was restricted to fan sites and forums. Now, if major websites (reputable ones) or news programs discussed it as "there has been an increasing number of fans that believe the next Batman film will be called .... , or an increasing number of fans have petitioned to get the next Batman filmed called...". But you cannot go around saying that "it's common knowledge" when what you are refering to is EVERYONE's opinion. That wasn't my opinion or my knowledge. I never thought that the movie would be called that, and I'm a fan. Citing fan opinion is POV, because, unless you take a poll on several websites with the question "Did you ever think that The Dark Knight was originally going to be called Batman Continues?" then you have no way of guessing what is common knowledge to everyone else. If there are other articles with "common knowledge" trivia then please point them out, because you may be reading articles with POV trivia, or the common knowledge might be common opinion but common fact (which in that case Batman Continues was not common fact). Bignole 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Erik, you kinda repeated what I just said, first off. Second, Rory, the articles you speak of might actually be in trouble. Having a lot of content is meaningless if none of it's sourced. Look at Polygyny. I personally, feel some of the stuff stated there is obvious and the term itself should be used over Polygamy, but Wikipedia isn't about POV, dude. I'm sorry if you feel your additions were removed unjustly, but insistantly reverting is a GIPU move and bound to end in an edit war. I've seen it all too often. Citations help readers believe the content and validate what would otherwise seem like BS to other Wikipedians and, just like your work, be removed. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I did. No wonder this talk page's size is "longer than is preferable". --Erik 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Damnit, Bignole knocked my comment upload out, and when i rewrote it, Ace did. Twice. UGH! and I didn't even get a notice page. anyways, what I'd said was that talking an edit out on the talk page will probably get you far more leeway on the quality of the citation if you can provide some rationale and background.ThuranX 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read both of those {{fact}} spots, and first of all one of them is with another Director. It shouldn't even be there so I am removing it as the objective person in this case. The one about Sean Penn, about being the joker, is here http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/628/628920p1.html, and I don't think that means Nolan was courting him to the role. so I'm cutting both. --Shane (talk/contrib) 02:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's called an edit conflict. If you look closely, you can still copy and paste the content of "your version" to the current version. Gotta read, man. Heck, I just had one due to the recent edits of Bugs. Speaking of which...those recent edits/comments don't much bearing on the matter at hand, you wascally wabbit! ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the information because there was no viable citation. With future films, technically, WP:NOT a crystal ball or a rumor mill, but a source of facts. Film articles are hard to ignore that they have tons of resourceful information. But since this movie is not released, the information I removed, should stay removed. --Shane (talk/contrib) 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Shane, you're off topic. No one's disagreeing, either. >.> ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The articles I spoke of are far from in trouble. They do quite well actually, and everyone who edits the articles I speak of already know it's true. There are many citations in it, but not one for every single speck of informationRoryS89 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89
Hey, I wouldn't know. It's not like you mentioned any by name. >.> However, as X stated above, articles about unreleased media might require more citations than your average "This is what it is and that's all there is" sort of dealy you can find on some pages. Futher, no everything is cited, or needs to be, but it always helps. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I understand why you want to cite things, so I won't press the matter.RoryS89 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Recently, the Trivia section was merged into the rest of the article. I'm not sure how good of an idea this is, especially in regards to the Joker and Harvey Dent candidates. Instead of being "off to the side" in the Trivia section of the article, the bits of information are part of what would be important sections. Which seems to leave open the opportunity for additional edits about who else was a Joker candidate and who is in the running for Harvey Dent. In addition, I'm fine with the unique title being mentioned in the opening paragraph, but I'd rather have the sentence rewritten, especially with information from a Christopher Nolan or Christian Bale interview in regard to the title. Thoughts on any of this? --Erik 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe "Interest" subsections. I'll take a shot at it, if I may. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I. Ninja has moved everything back to the trivia section. I never thought I'd see a Wikipedian who wanted to keep stuff in trivia. Odd. Anyway, just thought I'd bring that up. No strong opinion either way. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit because practical steps were taken in regard to handling the Trivia section; no reason to change it back. Furthermore, if the non-Batman title sentence is too much trivia, we can work in what Nolan and and Bale have said about the title in interviews to create a Title subsection in the Production section. --Erik 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Rumored Casting

I would like to get other editors' opinions on a couple of items from the Cast section. First of all, is mentioning the possibility of the Penguin really credible? I don't like the BOF citation, as in this case, they get their news from a "scooper". I would have deleted it a while ago, but there seemed to be a persistent will to mention the Penguin at the time. In addition, the Jake Gyllenhaal citation is dubious. I honestly doubt that Nolan will cast Gyllenhaal after Ledger is on board. There's a possibility of "Brokeback Batman", sure, but I don't think such a rumor is worth keeping based on the dubious citation. Share your thoughts. --Erik 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, tell me about it. Personally, I'd rather trash all the penguin and black mask stuff, too. I mean...this is The Dark Knight, not Spider-Man 3 for christ's sake. Still, I'm all for watching the whole thing blow up in some idiot's face and rubbing in how wrong they were after the fact. What it really comes down to, though, is the sourcing. As has been stated elsewhere, we've got way too much attributed to the mess which is "BOF" already. Even if it turns into another sandler thing or the page(s) must be semi-protected, we can't keep what's basically just a a high level rumor in the article. It's certainly believable, but that's not what makes good articles. Anyone else have thoughts? 08:00, August 4, 2006 by Ace Class Shadow (Talk | contribs)
Okay. I've corrected the cast section per these concerns. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sites such as Super Hero Hype and IHN Filmforce have also reported about the Penguin possibly being in it. Oh, and if you think Spider-Man 3 has to many villains, then count he villains in Batman Begins.RoryS89 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89
Are you talking about this IGN FilmForce article that says: "In related news, The Batman-on-Film.com website reiterates the rumor that the next Batman movie will feature multiple villains, namely Joker and The Penguin. The latter will reportedly be reconceived for the film as 'a British arms dealer/mob boss with designs on Gotham'"? And I couldn't find a SuperHeroHype.com article, but I'm fairly positive that if there is one, it would cite Batman-on-Film. They reported the BOF rumor; it is not an independent report about the possibility of the Penguin. Hence why I question the validity of the BOF rumor, as they have had many rumors that have not panned out. --Erik 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, I've already had this discussion with you on your talk page, and I presented these citations: JoBlo.com, Moviehole.net, CanMag.com, SlashFilm.com, Cinema Blend, IESB.net, ComicBookMovie.com, which all cite Batman-on-Film for the Penguin rumor. Just because it's repeated enough doesn't make it true. --Erik 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of the antagonists in BB weren't villains to Batman, only the Scarecrow and Ra's. Falcone was taken care off easily and didn't even know of Batman when he was. Either way, what does that have to do with anything? Bignole 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing your edits

Editors ThuranX and Ace Class Shadow have put together this Template:Cite your edits to inform new editors of an expectance of verifiable contributed information. The template was added to this film article, but Someguy0830 removed it, saying it was too boilerplate. I think, though, that this template would be a valuable addition to film articles like these. Other films, such as Spider-Man 3 and Transformers, come to mind. I've noticed that a lot of edits are anonymous users or registered users with a focus on film articles. This template seems to be the best way to inform about the need to cite sources and not just post something heard through the grapevine. What are the other editors' thoughts on this? --Erik 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that most film articles could benefit from such a template. Bignole
The same message is written right above where users enter their edit summaries, and that doesn't stop them from ignoring it. Having an poorly-styled repeat of that message won't help. If it were styled more like {{controversial}} I wouldn't mind so much, but it's still not something that anyone should ever get into the habit of doing. It's one of those slippery slopes. It'll only encourage other similar templates. Template messages should only be used either on the talk page or when absolutely necessary like that future template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there needs to be something. I mean, I've been editing for quite awhile and I've never really paid attention to the info above the Edit Summary box. I mean, I saw it, but I didn't pay enough attention to notice it. But, the template doesn't just say "content must be verifiable", it actually says to cite your source, which the info above the Edit summary box does not say, and which some users may take to mean that other editors will seek out the source. I think the template could use a bit of a costume change, so to speak, but I think the message is a good idea. You know as well as I the problems we had (and still do) on Spider-Man 3. I'm not saying that it will stop those Anon's that just adding vandalism to the page, with their personal opinions, but I think it could curb some of the "good hearted" users, that are adding things that they did hear through forums and stuff, from adding without checking into their information...or atleast providing a link to where they heard it so that we can go and read it ourselves and determine if it is reputable. Bignole 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
At the most I think it'll stop registered users, and maybe a few IPs. I can almost guarantee you that it won't stop the majority of the nonsense. This wouldn't have been any more helpful on Spider-Man 3 than it would be here. If it gets to be a major problem, you can add a request for protection. Those people tend to comply to most requests. I'm strongly against using a template to solve the problem, though. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, adding nonsense is pretty much adding vandalism and that will never be stopped so long as there are morons out there that have nothing better to do with their time than try and disrupt something. I disagree, I think that something like this would have prevented a good amount of Spider-Man 3 edits that were being posted without sources. Remember the fued we had over Venom, and how we all knew the truth but because there was no source to back it up we couldn't post it. I think a clear warning that a source MUST be cited for information would have halted many of those, because most people weren't doing it to add nonsense, which you will never be able to stop. As for the protection, the only way I can see that being done well is to have a protection so that only registered users can edit the page, but usually you have to have a reason to get those anyway. A normal protection that blocks everyone and forces every decision to the Talk Page will just be a hassle for everyone else that is adding productive and cited information to the article. Bignole 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"People keep adding unsourced and likely untrue claims on a nearly-constant basis" usually gets you semi-protection. I'm not suggesting full protection. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and that would have worked for Spider-Man, seeing as we had such a flood, but right now with this article we don't have that flood. We have plenty of edits of unsourced material, but it really isn't in such a high degree (in my opinion) that we would be able to get a partial protection, that's why I felt it would be nice to try and halt that flood before it starts. Bignole
Thanks for the support, guys. I'm touched...in a clean way. I agree that a somewhat flashy template might not be the best thing to use for the long haul. X actually wanted it to be on the talk page so...yeah. I've changed the color to blend in more, rather than seeming like an alert message. I don't think controversial is a good example, for obvious reasons, and I'm not a big fan of color. (Reminds me of a golden shower.) Anyway, on the base of it, I can accept your original decision in the original context, 0830. We're not out to force this on Wikipedia by any means. However, being subject to rumors and speculation is temporary, but a serious thing. It does die down and even stop, but when it's going, even a team of Wikipedians can have their hands full. For example, look at Shinn Asuka. The guy's controversial. He screams it. That doesn't wash. However, articles like this aren't about a subject that everyone's up in arms over. Frankly, the main difference is that while the subject matter, the main facts, won't be disputed—ignoring the "Heath sucks" crowd for a moment—new additions may be. That's, I guess, why we need to add the template at all; Why we need to add it while there is still information to find.
Oh and as for stating the obvious, I really don't think we're doing that, either. Rory's not an idiot and yet he didn't seem to see the point of citation. I think that says something about the process. And hey, I'm not saying we go wild or do something stupidlike add it to all the future films. I don't think "Stranger Than Fiction is gonna have this article's rumor issues. I'm just saying that for all the talking we can do to explain citation on the talk page after the fact, a template can drive the message home even faster.
And to the semi-protect or full protect thing, but require something along the lines of a controversial and most expected subject conbined. Like...something that lead people to not only break the three revert rule, but shatter it and then pulverise into powder. I tried to get a semi-protect for Thor (Marvel comics) during some copyvio issue. You'd think it'd just be automatic. Heck no. Believe me, protection is a last resort and something that should never be taken lightly. I remember when two GIPUs wouldn't stop messing with the Adult Swim article and it had to be semi-protected. I was at my wits end; Out of options. Believe me, you do not want to get there. If I could have used a template to stop those GIPUs, I would have. Anyway, we shouldn't even be thinking about that. We're lucky. The big things have past. Joker's cast. Venom's cast. This template might not be as useful now as it might have been two months ago. I admit that. Still, I'm just putting it out there. It's an option. Now, if you'll excuse me, the backlog on my watchlist could be multiple cases of vandalisam going unnoticed. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Phillippe as Harvey Dent

This section is to address the current rumor about Ryan Phillippe portraying Harvey Dent in the sequel. According to an IMDb news blurb, this news is based on "internet reports". This is not a valid source, so any emerging news articles about this rumor will probably draw from this blurb. This source draws from this ContactMusic source, which basically copies the blurb that shows up on IMDb. Batman-on-Film.com has also mentioned this rumor, citing the IMDB blurb, but still calling it a rumor. So if you find any sources about this rumor, track back if necessary to see where it really ends up -- the originating source may not be so valid. --Erik 15:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

History shows that IMDB is usually right and they do confirm their sources before posting. In any chance, good idea for a casting choice. :) Shane (talk/contrib) 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
One, Wikipedia is not a forum to debate validity/quality of said choice. Second, IMDb is not always right, and is editable by anyone with an account and an urge to edit, not unlike wiki, This is amply evident in the recent IMDb 'news' that Carnage would be Aunt May, John Jameson is the ManWolf, and so on. There is AMPLE discussion and notice throughout this page and the article page regarding the need for wiki editors to maintain high standards for sources. I support removing any 'confirmations' not based on press releases for the appropriate people (Studio, Producers, DC, WB, or Philippe's people.)ThuranX 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot inspiration - should we note?

Considering Batman Begins was inspired by Man Who Falls, Year One and Long Halloween, should we start noting some speculation as to how Nolan will carry this thread through? Wiki-newbie 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh...no. Wikipedia isn't built on speculation. Besides, we barely know anything but a few major players. Further, those three were stories mentioned specifically by Nolan. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but whilst Nolan could say this film is based on year two, long halloween or whatever and it would clearly have a place here, some Wikipedian placing admitted speculation into the article would just make the 'pedia look bad, Newbie. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin

According to UGO.com, based on other sites, "Philip Seymour Hoffman is 'confirmed' for The Penguin in the Batman Begins sequel." There is an intentional use of quotation marks to show that this is not verifiable information. Furthermore, the article says, "Philip Seymour Hoffman will be The Penguin. Maybe." This article, and the other articles on which this one is based, are not verifiable sources unless there is information provided by the appropriate people -- the studio, director, producers, writers, or Hoffman himself. Otherwise, this is just a rumor, and rumors do not fit the encyclopedic fashion. --Erik 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interview with Christopher Nolan

Apparently, Mean Magazine had an interview with Christopher Nolan. A portion has been shared online, but the full interview will be shown in the October 23 issue of Mean Magazine. Just a heads-up for any readers of that particular magazine; could be some useful information to add to the film article this fall. --Erik 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Riddler

Should the possibility of The Riddler/Edward Nygma appearing or at least having a cameo be mentioned because as the Red Hood Origin that's used in The Killing Joke, which has been confirmed to be an influence used for The Joker in the film, The Riddler confesses he observerd it in Pre-transformation form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.177.11 (talk • contribs) 11:58, August 25, 2006

Sorry, but this is just speculation. Just because The Killing Joke will be a source to put together this sequel's Joker doesn't mean in any way that The Riddler would appear. It's just a matter of drawing characteristics together from various sources, and there's no source to indicate any relation to The Riddler. For future reference, sign your comments with four tildes (~). --Erik 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BlackMask 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. Not unless there's some spectacular amount of sources. I'm getting tired of citations based on rumors on rumors, and I'm going to get more and more hard about the quality of sources. We've seen this page get really polluted over and over. Focus on facts, not rumor and opinion. thanks all.ThuranX 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, this article's come a long way from when it used to be Untitled Batman Begins sequel. I think that the article is very respectable now, and I hope we all make sure that its respect holds up to and beyond the film's release. A film article like the upcoming Transformers makes me cringe when I compare it to this one. Anyway, I'm glad BlackMask asked about The Riddler before attempting any changes. --Erik 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Refuted rumors

Director Christopher Nolan has talked to IESB.net and LatinoReview.com about the casting rumors. I'm not sure what useful information to extract from these articles, if anything at all. From the IESB.net article, I don't know how to read this:

  • Q: Any truth to the rumors of Ryan Phillippe or Phillip Seymore Hoffman?
  • CN: (Laughing) As the penguin, no, not true.
  • Q: Sean Penn?
  • CN: No truth, no truth to any of those rumors. All interesting ideas though.

Nolan didn't actually address that Phillippe would not be Harvey Dent. And regarding Penn, I don't know what rumor Nolan's heard in terms of Penn... maybe he assumed that we think Sean Penn is up for a casting call for one of the roles, where we're thinking, was Penn approached to be the Joker before Ledger? The LatinoReview.com news has the same interview (not sure which source actually asked these questions). Others can take a look to see if there is any worthwhile information to include in the article -- I'm not sure if I see any. (It's a nice couple of links to spoon Hoffman and Penn editors, though.) --Erik 12:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does end by denying it all. One should probably take it to mean that none of the rumors mentioned are truth as of august, 2006. However, he does not revoke the right to consider Hoffman for another role. He's very playful about it, too. I'd say that's a good sign he doesn't takes the rumors seriously. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robin

Do we really need a Robin section? It has no bearing on the film. He was never mentioned other than refuting by Nolan that he wouldn't appear ever. It isn't like Falcone or the Scarecrow who was in the first film and has yet to be acknowledged if they will return or not. Bignole 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We can move the Robin information to the Trivia section or purge it entirely. Either works for me. --Erik 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and I have done so myself, for the trivia section. It's nice to have something other than the Joker. Wiki-newbie 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But is it even worthy of trivia? I mean it's simply stating the Nolan doesn't plan on using Robin as long as he is directing. That would be like puting "Raimi never plans on using Venom as long as he is directin" in the trivia section of Spider-Man 1 or 2. It really has not merit unless it turns out that he does end up using him (as Raimi did with Venom). Bignole 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the removal of the Robin sentence. The link will stay in the article's history, anyway, so it can be retrieved later if necessary, if the director ever brings Robin on board. --Erik 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We should keep the link though. Wiki-newbie 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the prodigious efforts of vandals to be illiterate on wikipedia, it might be worth tossing into the trivia instead of out the window, just to prevent idiot edits adding robin based on forum crybabies. ALternately, let's make section here for held, cited info like the robin stuff, so that we can point to it to validate reverts. ThuranX 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't hold trivia value. Nolan said he never plans on using Robin..ok. Does the lack of a character warrant trivia if that character shouldn't appear anyway? It's only trivia if he does include Robin, thus it would be placed on the Batman film that included Robin as a way of showing that Nolan's action contradict what he said earlier. You shouldn't indulge other just so you don't have to put up with their vandalism. Bignole 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bignole, ThuranX means to mention the Nolan citation here on the talk page so we can point to it if anonymous editors ever come by to try to insert Robin into the article somehow. As per ThuranX's request: According to SuperHeroHype.com, director Christopher Nolan said that he nor the studio intend to cast Robin into the franchise, and that Nolan would probably not be around when Robin enters the franchise. --Erik 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he said "it might be worth tossing into the trivia instead of out the window". I think a section here is fine, and I put the link at the bottom of the article page with a title indicating that it was Nolan's opinion of Robin. Bignole 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox

I think that Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox should stay unconfirmed because what producer Charles Roven said in an interview: "We are hoping, depending upon everyone's schedule and other aspects of what it is they want to do with their careers, that we're going to get most if not all of them who are alive back. Meaning 'alive in the movie', not really alive... sorry. We're supposed to get them back if we can. The script is in the process of being written. There isn't a screenplay that exists right now, so I can't really tell you much more than that. Certainly Christian Bale is going to play Batman and Bruce Wayne." The press release announcing Heath Ledger as the Joker didn't reveal any further casting information, either. It can't be assumed that Lucius Fox will come back, since his character isn't mentioned as part of the revealed synopsis. If you have an argument that Freeman should be confirmed, present it here. --Erik 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

/FILM followed up on IGN's latest report with their own article, which said, "Returning cast includes: Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne / Batman, Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as James Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox." I haven't heard anything regarding Freeman's return, so I can't tell if /FILM is assuming this. Obviously, we've kind of assumed in the article that Gary Oldman would be returning based on Gordon's role in the plot. Is /FILM a reliable source for this information? Should Freeman be moved from Unconfirmed into the Confirmed cast list? --Erik 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask about this, though /FILM could've pulled it from IMDb, is that something from WP:V caught my eye: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Hence my uncertainty about how to address this lately. --Erik 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I keep seeing that in movie articles. Eh. No that Free-Man assertions, but verification over believability. Feh, whatever. Cite it and move him, if you want. Chances are he will be in the movie. On the other hand, there's the thing with Kate Holmes. I don't know, but I'm not stressed. You shouldn't be, either. Add or don't add, it's not the end of the world and there are good reasons to take either position. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not getting stressed out over this. :) Seeing how it can be easily assumed that Morgan Freeman could make an appearance in the sequel based on his role helping Batman in the first film, I'll let the article stick with the uncertainty factor until there's actual confirmation from someone that's part of the project. --Erik 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Well once again, Harvey's on the cast list. No actor, just "???". Before we go off and remove it. I think e should develop a consensus on the matter.

Questions, just of the top of my head:

  • Can we list a confirmed role without a confirmed actor?
  • If not, why can't we?
  • Is it a double standard that, if the situation were reversed, a confirmed actor would likely be listed without a confirmed role, ala Topher Grace?
  • Does an open space for an actor invite even more vandalism? (Epecially with the Phillppe rumors.)

I'm not necessarily talking all out vote, as Wikipedia is not a democrasy, but I'm not sure how I feel about removing the name without fellow Wikipedians' input. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we had more of a verified plot, and Dent was mentioned there, then I think listing Dent w/out an actor would be ok. Right now the plot was merely an opinion about what they would like to do...I mean they haven't even finished the script. If there was more of a confirmation then I could say yes. Like Topher was confirmed to be in the movie, just no one would say who he was playing. His confirmation in the movie is what lead to him being able to be list on the Cast list. (BTW, if you keep him you should have "To be announced" and not "???"). Bignole 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Good point. I'll remove it. Thanks. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bob Hoskins as The Penguin

Another heads-up about future casting. According to this IGN article, Bob Hoskins was asked about the rumors about him playing The Penguin (and was genuinely surprised to hear about it). First of all, the reason that the question was asked because it was based on "magazine and online". There has never been any official mention by any public figure involved with The Dark Knight project other than "scoopers" about The Penguin being in this sequel. So this cannot qualify as article-worthy information, since we do not know if there is a role that exists for which Hoskins would be willing to take. Unless there is any disagreement, any edits will be reverted until there is an official source that says The Penguin will be in the movie. Only then can Bob Hoskins be included as actors interested in the Joker were. --Erik 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Liev Schreiber mention

A couple of blurbs about Liev Schreiber has been moved from the Harvey Dent subsection to the trivia section. While I'm fine with the move, I'm thinking about taking this a step further and just purging the information entirely. I was the editor who dug up the chat transcript with Schreiber to disprove the rumor floating around at the time of Schreiber being cast as Harvey Dent. I don't know how necessary this is anymore. Also obviously, the video interview quote isn't very informative at all, as Schreiber does not mention the capacity in which he would want to be involved regarding the sequel. Should the information be purged entirely? I think it should be. --Erik 01:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who moved this to the trivia section, as Liev has only mentioned that he would take the role of Harvey Dent if offered, yet has not yet even been spoken to about the role. I personally am fine with removing the information altogether, although I think that you should wait and see if anyone else responds, and if so, what thier opinion is on this. 66.24.229.233 01:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Trash it. Otherwise we'd have to put every Joe Schmoe that says he would be interested in the role if offered. Bignole

Then what of the Joe Schmoes that were interested in being the Joker? --Erik 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there might be a compromise, in which we sum it up, as was done for the Joker, where we simply say, other actors considered or publicly interested in the role were, a,e,i,o,u... and... sometimes Y. ThuranX 02:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (sorry, started teaching k-4 this week... )
I never thought they deserved being mentioned either. A lot of people are interested in parts for films, it doesn't really make it noteworthy. I've seen other articles mention similar things, and even then it wasn't worth mentioning. I think if they were actually in the running, then yeah that could be worth it. But the fact that they wanted to do it, and no one asked them, or even knew they were interested...that just seems to me like it's irrelevant. Bignole 02:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Being "in the running", however, is far harder to confirm. I mean, technically Lachy was, supposedly, right? Feh. I can agree with the logic you all are using. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I can go with either way of thinking. I do however think that clear, confirmed interest is far more worthy of note than the problem some months ago with Joker, when every single name mentioned on any blog got onto the page. Finally, I think it might be best to agree to drop all this stuff after a full confirmation of an actor is made? Until then, a single line about 'interest', with good citations, will preclude most of the gipu fanboy edits adding every little thing, whereas deleting 'interested' candidates will seem to many newbs as an absence of information that they'll be willing to supply. ThuranX 02:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Works for me Bignole 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

There's been a couple of attempts to add onto the Joker subsection with information from interviews with Heath Ledger. Right now, the edit is, "In an exclusive interview with Darkhorizons.com at the Toronto Film Festival Ledger stated on the character, 'He's going to be really sinister and it's going to be less about his laugh and his pranks and more about just him being a just a f-ing sinister guy.' In a recent interview with MSN.com, Ledger stated that the character will wear a mask in the film." I am not so big on quotes, especially in this context, as they are quasi-revealing about the character. I'd like to get a view of what you guys think of what should be incorporated from what Ledger has said. I've compiled the quotes below.

From Toronto Sun:

  • About The Dark Knight - "It's definitely going to stump people. I think it'll be more along the lines of how the Joker was meant to be in the comics, darker and more sinister."

From Toronto Star:

  • In response to the unexpected Joker casting - "I wouldn't have thought of me, either. But it's obviously not going to be what Jack Nicholson did. It's going to be more nuanced and dark and more along the lines of a Clockwork Orange kind of feel. Which is, I think, what the comic book was after: less about his laugh and more about his eyes."

From Dark Horizons:

  • "I actually hate comic book movies, like fucking hate them, they just bore me shitless and they're just dumb. But I thought what Chris Nolan did with Batman was actually really good, really well directed, and Christian Bale was really great in it."
  • About the Joker - "He's going to be really sinister and it's going to be less about his laugh and his pranks and more about just him being a just a fucking sinister guy."
  • "But I think it's just going to be a really fun experience [portraying the Joker], and I love to dress up and wear a mask."
  • On the Joker's appearance - "I've seen a few interesting designs on the look and I think that it's going to look pretty cool."

From MSN News:

  • About The Dark Knight - "[Nolan's] going to make it a lot more sinister, and we've got a little plan for him, but it's exciting. Any opportunity to don a mask is always exciting to me."

I don't think that either "sinister" quote is relevant to the article, as it's not very informative compared to Nolan tying the Joker to The Killing Joke and his first two comic book appearances. Furthermore, I'm not sure about including mask information with the quotes. It's kind of expected that the Joker would have some kind of prosthetics like Nicholson did for the exaggerated appearance, and the article itself says that no costumes have been designed. Is it really contributive to mention that Ledger thinks the designs look cool? --Erik 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Toughy. The guy's not exactly a poet. Still, the preveiling statements reference "sinister" at nauseam and a mask is mentioned not once but twice. I'd go with that. Reference his quotes, but don't use them directly. State something like..."According to statements by the actor, Heath Ledger, the character will be extremely "sinister" and a mask may be used to achieve his appearance." ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if he means a mask-mask, or like a prosthetic nose, or even if he's meaning a symbolic mask? Bignole 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought about that, too, but somehow this guy doesn't seem very "symbolic". You know? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anything should be mentioned about the mask. There's already been a couple of edits referencing the possibility of a mask, when the "mask" could just be some white face paint, green hair dye, and red lipstick. I don't care to include a reference to Ledger's description of a "sinister" Joker, unless we can tie it into Nolan's connection to Joker lore somehow. I'm familiar with The Killing Joke, but not the first two comic book appearances of the Joker, so I don't know how well "sinister" can be written in. --Erik 02:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
From the context, Heath seemed to be referring to "wearing a mask" as a metaphor for acting, although it is entirely possible that he makes an appearance with a literal msk as the Red Hood, although this would be much too speculative to mention on the page. In either case, it seems as though the reference to A Clockwork Orange would be useful to mention.66.24.229.233 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Credits for comic book creators

Regarding the film, I predict DC/WB will simply credit Bob Kane, as it has done in all its comics and movie/tv/other tie-in properties so far. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it should stray from the official credits given by DC and report the true creators behind this project. The Joker was co-created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson, while Batman was co-created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Furthermore, I am guessing, it is stories like Frank Miller's the Dark Knight Returns, Grant Morrison and Dave McKean's Arkham Asylum, Ed Brubaker and Doug Mahnke's The Man who laughs and especially [2] Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke which will shape the content and tone of this film. Who will receive credit by DC remains to be seen, yet the Wikipedia community should not fail to do so. I edited the main page infobox to include Finger and Robinson as co-creators with Kane. --Haris 19:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just fixed the off the wall writing. Wiki-newbie 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the Joker secton. >.> ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering that The Dark Knight will be an amalgamation of various Batman stories, shouldn't this line of thinking include Alan Moore for his interpretation of the Joker in The Killing Joke? If people involved with the project reveal that the film has been influenced by The Long Halloween, for example, should Jeph Loeb be credited? It just seems that if Jerry Robinson is credited for being one of the Joker's original co-creators, then shouldn't Moore be credited because of his interpretation of the Joker as well? Are we crediting influences on the movie as a whole or on specific characters? --Erik 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. I think we should stick with the "creators" not the people that changed things about the character. It's like Venom, with Spider-Man (though the debate about the true creator is still in the air). I think that we don't need to list them in the infobox, but maybe somewhere in the article. That would help bring in some out-of-universe elements to the article. The same goes for Batman. Warner Brothers/DC are only legally obligated to credit Bob Kane, and as such the same goes for here. Though, I think that a section detailing that kind of out-of-universe information would be good, though I think it has a better place on Batman Begins. Bignole 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What was that last part about BB? You mean a film that's already released rather than an expected picture? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that legally, only Bob Kane is credited as the creator of Batman, even though other people had a hand in it. I think that a section about the creation of the characters (small section, they have their own articles) with a discussion about where the current version got it's idea would be good for an out-of-universe requirement when doing fictional universe articles. The same for the Joker. The people that are legally credited as the creators should be in the infobox and the people that helped shape the characters should be mentioned in a section about the development of the character, and how it is used in the film. But, I think Batman's development would be best served on the "Begins" article, seeing as that is the first time he's seen in this new continuity. It could have a good section discussing what they pulled from to get this new version of Batman. Bignole 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what if you have been legally cheated of your rights to your creation? Your creation remains yours and an encyclopaedia should not fail to report so. The articles for Batman and the Joker credit their proper creators, rather than Bob Kane who owns that copyright. --Haris 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you are cheated out of it, it's still legal. We don't play God here. If they aren't credited by WB/DC then the infobox doesn't need to list it as such. On their personal pages is a different story, that's a page dedicated to those specific characters, and any contributions made to those characters should be noted. Technically Superboy is Superman, but legally they are separate characters because of poor business practices by WB/DC a long time ago with Jerry Siegel. If they hadn't cheated Jerry a long time ago then Superboy would fall under the "derivative of original work" clause in copyrights. The point is, we go by what's legal. A characters respective page is great for listing everyone that contributed to the characters concept, but not for a film. Even the film will be it's own interpretation, they just borrowo the likeness, and the legality of who is credited for creating the likeness that is being used is all that matters when you have a film. Again, I think a section discussing others that had a hand in the creation is a great idea, but just not for the infobox. There is such a thing as an overly lengthy infobox. Bignole 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree here. WB/DC is not the arbiter of 'who created X'. Sufficient documentation which meets WP:RS and WP:V is enough to be the basis for a section or addition to an infobox. That said, I think such information belongs on the Character pages, and not on the movie's page. I agree with editors who've said the same. Remember, the legal adherence that DC cites is in regard to royalties and residuals, not to history. DC has previously published work which admits Finger's role, but he is not legally the creator for purposes of finances, nor by settlement in the courts, as is the case for the Siegel and Schuster stuff. The standards are different for compliance with a legal contract and an encyclopedia. Anyways, that's enough hot air from me. ThuranX 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

IGN FilmForce Editorial

Stax at IGN FilmForce posted an article that dissected how The Dark Knight could turn out. While I don't feel that this article is appropriate for inclusion in the article's main body, as it repeats certain already-confirmed points that are already cited in the article, could the article qualify as an external link? Obviously, right now, we don't know just how similar the film will be to the comics, or how similar the characters will be to the comics. Is this article appropriate as an external link or not? It's pretty in-depth, but it's just too speculative to actually have as part of the content based on what we know now about the film. --Erik 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say add it. It meets the relavence requirement and could be informative. At worst, it might become outdated. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Future layout suggestions

I know it's probably a bit early to look ahead to see how this article would shape up, but I have a few suggestions about how to break down the content, listed below:

  • With the final casting call, remove information on any unconfirmed cast member (e.g., Cillian Murphy) left behind
  • Create a "Principal characters" section for Batman, the Joker, and Harvey Dent so production-based information (announcement dates, character influences, etc.) can flesh out these players outside of the "Cast" section
    • Addendum: Keep plot points out of the "Principal characters" section if already mentioned in the inevitable "Plot outline" section, unless certain scenes reflect the depth of the characters (in a citable fashion, of course)
  • Place the "Casting interests" section in a subsection somewhere (not sure where, maybe "Cast" section), unless we can expand on the section as to whom Nolan actually considered for his film's roles

Probably too much time on my hands. :) --Erik 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Way too much, yes. But I think planning in advance is a good idea... perhaps we can try to work out some standard formats for future comic films ahead so that they can all look similar? Hit up my talk page for ideas and we'll talk. ThuranX 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea, Erik. However, I doubt anything will be announced officially in regard to who was directly considered for a role, and not just interested. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Batman #1

Currently, this sentence exists in the Joker subsection: "In a September 2006 interview, Heath Ledger said that his role as the Joker would be 'more nuanced and dark and more along the lines of a Clockwork Orange kind of feel. Which is... what the comic book [Batman #1] was after: less about his laugh and more about his eyes'." Now from the Dark Knight Detective Work citation, it says this: "Ledger's comment that this film's Joker will be 'less about his laugh and more about his eyes' also fits in with Batman #1's depiction of him as a 'grim jester' who has a 'smile without mirth.'" While this Batman #1 quote analysis may or may not accurate, it's not original research, but part of an in-depth citation about the Joker's origins. The question is, should it be included or not, why or why not? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To my recollection Batman #1 describes the Joker as "a very unusual man...shrewd, subtle, and above all ruthless." and "changeless, mask-like face- with its chalk-white skin, rouge-red lips, and burning, hate-filled eyes, all topped by a wavy mass of green hair--has become a visual synonym for evil. In moments of triumph, he wears a wide grin, but it is a smile without mirth... a smile of death! The awesome, ghastly grin of... the Joker!" (Batman #1, spring 1940). The description as a "grim jester" did not appear until Batman #8, December 1941. L0b0t 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that Heath Ledger was expressly referring to a 66 year old comic book in his interview. How many young actors do you know of that read golden age comics for fun? Christian Bale looked at modern age when he first got his role, the writers used books like The Long Halloween, Year One, and The Man Who Falls for inspiration in writing the first film, so it's MUCH more likely the Ledger was observing what he'd seen in a modern age book. The Killing Joke is more dialgue driven than anything else, and Nolan has stated that particular work as an influence for his interpretation of the character. --CmdrClow 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Your assumption borders on original research about whether or not Ledger would have read this comic. Furthermore, he was cast for the Joker, so if we want to be assumptive about it, Ledger could've possibly researched the character or have been filled in by Joker consultants or whatever. Batman #1 is one of the first two appearances of the Joker in Batman canon, and Nolan said that the first two appearances would influence the Joker of this sequel. The Batman #1 matching with Ledger's statement is not a product of original research but instead a result of an analysis by an informed source that has provided solid news about The Dark Knight in the past. I don't think it's a matter of opinion as to whether Ledger was referring to Batman #1 or not -- it's a matter of whether the interpretations of secondary sources should qualify. When this film comes up, there will be a lot of original research as to how much The Dark Knight matches certain aspects of Batman canon, so how permissive is that from Wikipedia editors or actual reliable sources? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Jamdav made a good point about not combining cited facts/statements to make a new sentence on [[Talk:Spider-Man3. Stuff added in brackets is usually very easily assumed a a simple paraphrasing. This statement assumes some heavy comic book knowledge on Ledger's part and the exact reference he's trying to make, if he even is. I'll stand by it, but there's reasons to writing something up differently. For example, we could return Ledger's quote to the way it was and just add something like "Just as Nolan said the Joker's first two appearances would be inspiration, the comic book Batman #1 offers a description of the Joker which mirrors Ledger's." ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Did Ledger expressly mention Batman #1? No. Therefore that parenthetical citation has no ground. Find an exact source that says he's talking about it, then you'll have an argument. Bottom line. Also, my statement is not an assumption. It's common sense. Ledger was simply talking about the comic interpretation, not a comic itself. --CmdrClow 05:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Easy, Clow. I've changed the section. Still, I neglected to read the citation. It does directly draw a link between Ledger's comment and Batman #1. Still, it's otherwise largely POV, offering assumptions and rumors with little regard for the kind of informing Wikipedia is meant to do. Ironically, you take a different stance with regard to the informing I reference when it comes to the BatWoman. Can you say sexxx-ist?! Ha! ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm fine with Batman #1 being taken out. I disagree with you, CmdrClow, though, about whether it's a comic book or comic interpretation. The Joker's had different styles in the comics (and Ledger mentioned a pretty specific style), so Ledger might be making a comic book interpretation, not necessarily 'cause he read it in his free time, but because someone told him that. But anyway, no biggie. (It's not like I put Batman #1 in originally... I was trying to make another editor's contribution work, but obviously to no avail.) I won't bother to try involving Batman #1 at all, since it's not the most major detail to include in this film article. I do want to know, though, is how secondary sources on The Dark Knight's influences should be cited, if at all. For example, there's a scene in the film that's similar to one from the comic book The Killing Joke -- can we really describe that without violating original research? I'm sure editors could draw reasonable conclusions between comic books and movies, but is this necessarily permissible? If there was a secondary source out there (like this citation about the Joker's background, for example) analyzing the similarities between The Dark Knight and Batman comics, would it be permitted at all, either? Just wondering what the policy on citing influences should be. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure. You seem to be talking about overt stuff noted after it's been seen. That's fine. If some chick gets shot through the abdomen and paralyzed, you can bet someone is going to make references to The Killing Joke. It's like Eddie Brock, Junior in Spider-Man 3. Do you have source for that? Do "we" at Wikipedia? Exactly, and yet it remains;it's fact. Yes, verifiability is mucho importanté. The claim that Gwen Stacy was with Eddie had beem mentioned several months ago, but only you're recently cited soure confirmed it. Still, that wasn't obvious and needed to be cited or removed. (I believe the latter option was chosen originally.) TV articles, movie summaries, et cetera all work here for one reason: the law of common knowledge. Whatever is seen from the film is common knowledge and you'd just be adding detail to that knowledge. Thusly, yes. If I see Harley Quinn in this baby—highly unlikely, though, folks—or anyone else from Batman: TAS, you can bet I'll make a note. Hope that helps. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters not appearing

I read this interview with Nolan today, in which he stated that he'd be more excited to "have Philip Seymour Hoffman in the film than to have the Penguin". He went on to say, "There are certain characters that are easier to mesh with the more real take on Batman we're doing. The Penguin would be tricky." So I was thinking, could we have a section or a subsection about characters that Nolan would not be including in this film? We have the interview where he talks about Robin, and now this. It's not news for the whole Batman film franchise, but it's news for how he approached the casting choices for The Dark Knight. We'll understand not just why he included some characters, but why he excluded others. The information relate a lot with his vision, especially regarding his "new" take, the title, etc. What do you think? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to put into the casting interests section, an example of a rumour that Nolan had to deny, to save the link before using in a new context once the film is out. Wiki-newbie 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Casting interests" section is about actors who were interested in available roles. Robin and The Penguin weren't available roles, so I'm saying that they could be used as supplementary information to explain Nolan's vision -- why he chose some characters, why he didn't chose some others. We don't have to dump information in the article for later use if it's not appropriate at the moment -- I linked to the interview in this section, and I know that when we had the discussion about Robin, the link was mentioned in that section as well. Either can be dug up for implementation now or when the time comes. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Screenplay then. Is the whole not different stuff there?. Wiki-newbie 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not understanding -- what do you mean by the "not different" stuff? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean Nolan's referral to not repeating the first film and trying something new. Or did Bale say that? Also, his referral to re-exploring justice vs vengeance. Wiki-newbie 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean now. Nolan has mentioned his intention in filming The Dark Knight differently from Batman Begins. I remember one thing he said was that it would be structured differently, since Batman is past the how-he-came-to-be phase. To me, though, that seems like obvious information. If we did have some kind of "Nolan's vision" section, we probably should provide information that would not be made immediately acknowledgable in the sequel. For example, I know he said that there would be an "escalation" in this sequel, but if we actually see this "escalation" fleshed out in the plot outline, then is it really information that needs to be included? Information like what Nolan and Bale have said about the title is more cryptical, and may require further explanation than the film structure or the "escalation" of the story. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Too complex maybe, but I'm glad I heard Nolan is re-exploring the same themes, plus leaving out multiple villains and Robin, all appropriate for 'Screenplay'. Wiki-newbie 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We could add an external link like the one for Robin. Frankly, I think he basically said all this penguin stuff before. He like Hoffman, not Penguin, Sean Penn was never considered, et cetera. Ace Class Shadow; User talk:Ace Class Shadow. 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we've seen this before, but repetition indicates significance, as well. I'd like ot find some way to include this new interview. THe best solution so far is to add it to 'Casting Interests'. Nothing in that section title biases it's content to actors interested in the production over producers interested in the actors. This is an existing section which can handily be used to cite dismissals of characters by producers and their statements as well. Offhand, we could say something like 'Although Nolan has dismissed rumors of PSH portraying the Penguin(insert cite one), He has stated interest in seeing PSH take some role in the franchise (insert cite two). Nolan has also dismissed rumors of appearances by Robin. (insert cite three).' Short, sweet, to the point, and allows us to keep the section tight and brief, removing lengthy quotes whenever needed to reduce page length, and unneeded content contained in the cites.ThuranX 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then let's add the Sean Penn thing, too. I'll try my hand at it, including the IESB and Latin review citations. Ace Class Shadow; User talk:Ace Class Shadow. 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tightened up the "Casting interests" section a little bit -- re-worded some sentences and cleaned up some citations. I took out Nolan's refutal about Hoffman being the Penguin, because it seems to imply that the Penguin would be in the film (I guess, to me, it does). If anyone wants to re-add that, worded differently, I'll be fine with it. Just be conscious of the fact that the previous sentence says Nolan wasn't planning to use the Penguin. All in all, I like this addition; it helps give an idea of how Nolan's approaching the cast and characters for this particular film. (Also, I didn't want to use "rumors" in "Nolan dismissed that" 'cause it felt like we'd be giving all the BS rumors out there some validation.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I like it more in this fashion, anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nolan's vision

I recently added a "Nolan's vision" section to the article. My hope is that this section can be fleshed out further throughout and beyond the development of the film to explain the director's approach to the film and the character, which has obviously been different from the past. Of course, we'll try to focus on this particular film, The Dark Knight, so I've tried to pull together Nolan interview tidbits into something coherent that will show the path of the film thematically. If anyone feels that this information is too redundant or extraneous, we can talk it out. I was also thinking about moving most of the Joker information (and expanding on it if possible) to Nolan's vision, since there's a plethora of information regarding this film's interpretation of the character. Let me know what you think. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool actually, but how about for the screenplay section?. Wiki-newbie 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my thinking is that the Production section is generally used for clear-cut (dry) facts, like who wrote what and when -- like that detail about filming locations that was recently added. The "Nolan's vision" section is more about influences and inspirations and reasonings for the film's path that can't be explained with facts but more with statements. Actually, on that note, if this section is agreeable to all, then the "Title" subsection could probably be moved to the "Nolan's vision" section. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm onboard. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of dates

I'm curious about other editors' opinions on using dates in film articles. I've surmised that the general rule of thumb for putting production events in chronological order is to simply use the month and year, unless numerous events in that particular month need to indicate the organization of specific dates by day. Obviously, if an interview with someone from the studio is posted on Oct. 18, 2006, this doesn't mean the interview took place on that day -- thus the "loosening" of the prevalent date. So for dates of production events, how can we decide whether a date is necessary -- do dates need to be stated regarding a revamp of the Batsuit, as opposed to the movie's filming schedule? Just curious as to your thoughts on this. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that in gthe early stages when things only happen at the rate of an event or two a month, we can use, for example, 'In october...' or '...in early october,' then 'and in late octber, ...'. As for interviews, I'd say that marking the exact date of release or conduction of the interview is important. Different pricipal cast and crew might give interviews within days of each other giving conflicting information, and we should note the available facts clearly. 'Clearly' meaning with dates and even location interview was conducted, to explain possible miscommunications or conflicts within the production, or whatever. ThuranX 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)