Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 5

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.

Contents

Whysoserious-After the word hunt

Okay it's been a while since anyones talked about it in full detail by why isn't Whysoserious.com considered an offical source since it clearly a Viral by WB and even has Audio and pictures that only WB could get. Such as the new picture and the Audio of Heath ledger saying the line "and Tonight your going to brake your one rule" in the Joker voice he used in the teaser clearly showing that it could only be WB sources that made Whysoserious (or at least has control over it now) and should be taking as an offical source along side "I believe in Harvey dent". But on the subject that should make Rory's Death kiss also part of the Viral campainge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included links to the viral marketing sites in External links. Considering what the sites have shown, there shouldn't be any dispute about their authenticity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Long Halloween comparison

I've added a comparison image for the viral website and The Long Halloween. Let me know if you think this is appropriate or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is since it was the "Two-face begins" story and this movie now makes me wonder if the third one will become mainly movie adaption of "Dark victory" since most of the pawns are in place with Havery becoming two-face, Joker being an element in the story and other villians able to jump in at any time (fingers are crossed for Poison, Cat and Freeze)in the next movie and I'm wondering if Dent will meet Gurndy in the sewers like in Long Halloween or some hulking figure in the shadows who gives off that Gurndy feel in this movie after Harvey gets scarred up--67.180.225.161 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
We'll find out if that's the case. However, we're not supposed to partake in general discussion per the talk page guidelines. We're supposed to talk about how to improve the article about the topic, rather than the topic itself. There are better places in which the topic can be discussed, like IMDb forums. Hope you understand! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already said that it was necessary to use that pic of the pumpkin to show the clear influence of the dark halloween in TDK. I´m happy you´ve taken the decision to include that comparison in the articleFranshu 04:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Images cannot be used as confirmation of anything, and I'm not very comfortable using a source that says "looks similar". That's like saying Ralphie May looks "similar" to Mr. Kool-Aid, and then showing an image of the two. It may be so, but it's really close to being indiscriminate. It isn't like using a secondary source to talk about themes or symbolisms, or other subjective topics about a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel that the image and/or the sentence about it should be removed right now, then? I won't oppose its removal if it can be replaced by something more significant. There's a lot of unique information about the film's marketing, so I was trying to find a way to reflect that. Perhaps a screenshot of the cut-out random-letter note would be more suitable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the letters would be a lot more appropriate, and the image is easier to show than to describe the game. Alientraveller 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Bigs, what do you think? I'd be fine with replacing the image with a screenshot of the letters, especially with two or more sites reciting the revealed message at the end. It'd capture the Joker-esque nature of the scavenger hunt. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC -- LOL, I'd of told you, but the both of you prevented me from saving..lol) I just don't like using that source to justify it, but that's my own opinion. I mean, I agree an image would dress it up, and that image or the random letter image would be good. Maybe the random letter cut-out would be better because we wouldn't be insinuating any intentions to make it look similar--which we don't have a source for--or being almost indiscriminate by say "it kind of looks like it". But what would you say if you used the cut-outs?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"The viral website WhySoSerious.com assigned Batman fans to decode a message from the Joker by embarking on a scavenger hunt to take photographs to provide photographs to compile the letters of the message. When completed, the decoded message read, 'The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.'" Some variation of that, perhaps? I wasn't completely clear about how the hunt was carried out -- didn't pay attention to it that closely, so some modification may be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That could work, but I'd probably change one of those "photographs" to "images" or "pictures".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have the actual picture that shows half of the pumpkin deteriorating from the Long Halloween issue, here:http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/WSS%20Temp/21bk4ua.jpg?t=1194234364 I tried to make a comparison here:
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/WSS%20Temp/tlh-tdk-pumpkins.jpg?t=1194234397
I don't know if it's good or not, and I'm not very good at uploading photos to wikipedia. But if anyone wants to use that picture instead, go ahead. --Lordkelvin 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the images you brought up establish a new point. The animated jack-o'-lantern from the viral website may not necessarily draw from the specific cover mentioned in the ComicBookMovie.com citation, but one of the other images shown during the circulation of The Long Halloween. I think it may be better to pursue a screenshot of the viral website after all to provide a visual aid for the scavenger hunt that was carried out. I appreciate the effort, Lordkelvin. Perhaps when we can get more direct information about The Dark Knight drawing from The Long Halloween, we can revisit the similarities in the symbols and motifs found between the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded an image of the scavenger hunt. Alientraveller 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! I modified the caption slightly and moved the image up so it's more "attached" to the viral website paragraphs rather than the roller coaster/preview content. I think we can improve the caption some more, though, to indicate its relevance or specify it, while at the same time keeping it succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this worth putting up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/movies/moviesspecial/04lyal.html?_r=3&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin It's a NY Times article with Heath Ledger, and there's a bit about his role and how it's been for him acting. It talks about a Joker diary he's been having. It's kind of interesting. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_begins_2_the_dark_knight/news/1677671/ It's kind of old. Not sure if it should be put in. That's why I'm putting it here. I also added a bit about the filming in Hong Kong. It's a bit wordy, so I wouldn't mind anyone cleaning it up--Lordkelvin 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The first is kind of interesting, and I'll try to find a way to incorporate the diary. The second offers little itn eh way of substance. We can't incorporate the vague hints at plot, and the one shot that's described lacks context; the rest of it's just adjectives, really. ThuranX 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the New York Times citation is great! I remember reading about Caine's comment on the Joker, but I personally think it's a little too promotional. What is Caine going to say, "He wasn't that scary when he came onto the set"? However, I think there are two useful bits in the New York Times -- Ledger's description of the Joker as a "psychopathic, mass-murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy" and the bit about Ledger keeping a Joker diary. I think the description is necessary in independently determining the psychology of the Joker -- I know that there's been debate about whether a character is really a psychopath, a sociopath, etc. The description can go before Bale's description of the Joker, perhaps? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm still a bit amateur in editing Wikipedia articles, so if someone could do it, that would be great. Thanks. --Lordkelvin 04:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, great job man. Why dont you review the edits after they're made, and you'll get a good idea of how you can incorporate the next find. ThuranX 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. --Lordkelvin 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A question for everyone. As we can tell, Batman and the Joker obviously have a lot more real-world context going for them than the other characters. (ThuranX, would it be cool if I moved the New York Times info to the Joker entry? It's character-specific, after all.) At some point, should we consider having prose paragraphs for Batman and the Joker under the Cast section? The real-world context surrounding them are getting pretty big for bulleted entries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do it now, and let's get it started. Pull all the Joker writing, development, and portrayal to it; make-up and prosthetics, if we find them, probably go under production though. ThuranX 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, like the Batsuit is covered there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
spot on ThuranX 05:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Because Bale, Ledger, Eckhart and Gyllenhaal's entries were so big, I de-bulleted them. I think this is a good way to distinguish information from main to supporting to minor characters when there is so much real-world information. Alientraveller 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about Verifiability

There are a bunch of articles floating around in the air which have major spoilers, and are most likely true. The problem is that they are not from big named sites like NY Times, since most of them come from exclusive interviews the magazine or news company has acquired. Still, the validity of these articles are most likely true. Isn't it at all possible to have a "Rumors and Speculations" section. I see that these sections appear in other wikipedia articles. I assume this is also the reason why the wizard world convention cannot be mentioned in the article.--Lordkelvin 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue with having a "Rumors and Speculations" section is that they do not come from reliable sources. Movie websites lack the reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight compared to a source like The New York Times. Anyone could post information they heard through a grapevine or from an anonymous scooper. Here's a good example: CHUD.com, which reports news about a film adaptation of Dragon Ball Z from "an old and trusted scooper named Tailgunner Joe". We don't know who "Tailgunner Joe" is, and we don't know if his word any good. The only verifiable information from movie websites would be from primary sources, such as the filmmakers or the cast. If someone says, "I'm someone who's part of the film's crew, and this is what I saw today!" he or she would not be someone whose information is verifiable. Let me show you one of the older revisions of this article from over a year ago -- July 18, 2006. That was about before the article received high maintenance, and it's pretty much a landing pad for all the rumors at the time.
If these so-called sections appear in Wikipedia articles, they should be examined to see if anything is verifiable and integrate the valid items accordingly while removing the rest. I believe that the reason we don't talk about the plot details from the Wizard World screening is because we're not supposed to read into anything about the trailer -- that's original research. We can't take plot information from different sources and try to compile it into a possible story. We can't profess to know how the pieces of the puzzle fit, you know? For films like The Dark Knight, there tend to be fan bases which speculate a lot about them. The best rule of thumb is to use verifiable content from reliable sources. Take a look at Cloverfield -- the speculation of that film has been so strong that it has appeared in newspapers, so that "Plot speculation" is information that has appeared in mainstream media. If we included rumors and speculation from the movie websites themselves, it would be far too long and of uncertain importance. Remember that for an encyclopedic entry like this, information should be high-quality to withstand the test of time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson's reaction

[1] I don't know whether to include this, because on the one hand, for many people, Jack is the Joker, but on the other hand, he didn't create the character. It was just so funny to see him think this is a sequel, but if he's joking... Alientraveller 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant as a sequel to Batman Begins since he probably saw the end of the film with the Joker playing card. This brings up a good point, though -- people will be comparing Ledger to Nicholson, so I think the Reception section should address that in some fashion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think its certainly notable. I don't agree with what he said, but the man is 70 he can say whatever he wants now. Rekija 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Kind of disturbing that he thinks it's a sequel to a 1988 film and can't face his age. (and yeah, as I read it, it's clear he didn't get the memo about 'new continuity'.) but it's worth noting in the article. ThuranX 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What I read from his statement was that he was pissed that they didn't ask him to "help" them on the sequel. I didn't see him saying he wanted to be the Joker, but that he felt they were basically obligated to "consult" him on the character and how the "new" Joker should be represented in Nolan's film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Arrogant old bastard, for a guy with that lara flynn boyle on glass tables fetish. Anyways, in it goes, and we should stop foruming up the place. ThuranX 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopediac tone

This article reads like a press release (which I think most of it is) and needs to be brought to a proper tone. Please consider what is notable for an encyclopedia. WP isn't the place for industry gossip or viral marketing. Ashmoo 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on what exactly sounds like a press release. Without the reviews, there's no way to provide perspectives of the film. Descriptive detail is the norm. As for viral marketing, the campaign was significant enough to be reported, as opposed to a huge majority of films that don't have that kind of marketing. In addition, there's no so-called industry gossip here -- the content is verified by reliable sources and makes up the background of this film. Please cite specific instances in which you think the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
By 'industry gossip', I didn't mean unsourced but just the kind of detail that might appear in a movie or comic magazine but wouldn't qualify as notable for an encyclopedia. The most obvious example (IMHO) is the list of actors who 'considered' the role of Joker. If one of the actors was cast, but then had to pull out during filming it would be notable, but 'considered' just doesn't seem notable enough. Ashmoo 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It would depend on who was doing the considering. If Nolan wanted someone to play the Joker, but they had scheduling conflicts, maybe. If he actually auditioned several high profile actors for the role, that's part of the casting information, which is part of the production information. Also, I don't think I agree with the removal of the "new cowl", since it is explained how it is compared to previous cowls. That's production information on the new designs of the batsuit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actors who "express" interest are more valid than the numerous people "rumoured". And yes, removing info on the cowl was unwarranted. Alientraveller 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashmoo, try to consider the role of the Joker as a character. Are there really that many other films in which actors may desire to play a specific role? Considering the number of names that expressed interest, the portrayal of the Joker had garnered some interest. In addition, information about the new cowl reflects the streamlining process of design in the production process -- —basically , improving on preexisting designs. There is not really any highly authoritative sources for recent films, so we consolidate the information available from headlines. Considering that a source like USA Today covered the Batcycle, such background information is presented in mainstream media. The article will continue expanding, and we will notice how critics and the public have received the film and particularly the Joker. I can understand your perspective about the imbalance of so much background information, but believe me, we've done our best to make such content verifiable. There's a lot of rumors floating around about different aspects of production, and we've done our best to combat that. We also plan to expand the article with information about the film's reception and impact, which I imagine to you would be more encyclopedic. However, it is just not possible at this point. If you have any other comments about other aspects of the article's content, feel free to share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The focus on 'production details' is what I meant by 'industry gossip'. Do you think in 10 years time anyone will care how easy the cowl was to turn, or how the production was streamlined? If the streamlining of production revolutionised the film industry it is notable, otherwise it just seems to me to be parroting the hype of the people marketing the film. This is an encyclopedia, not SFX and not a resource for collecting all the details of production of upcoming movies. I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but the article is just not encyclopediac. Ashmoo (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. People are interested in the design of costumes, cars, the written inspiration, the shooting locations and controversies etc... Jealous troll. Alientraveller (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I want off the wall there, but honestly, what on earth do you think we're working on? It's titled "Production" dude... Alientraveller (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ashmoo, is your concern more about the content about production rather than the general tone? I think we took your initial complaint to mean, "The article sounds like it's making people want to see this film!" We're not trying to do that. We're trying to compile verifiable content about how the film is made, and we plan to compile content about how it was received. Can you tell us what your ideal film article would be? Perhaps we can see how the article can be improved in everyone's favor. I understand your opinion that you don't think production information is encyclopedic, but I have to disagree with it. A film does not necessarily have to set a new milestone for its making to be relevant -- just have production information that is relevant to itself. For a film like this, there is suspension of disbelief through otherworldly production design, which is more than you can say for most dramas. For these dramas, though, there may be other aspects that take precedent -- for example, Redford's political intent in directing Lions for Lambs, historical accuracy in a period piece, et cetera. Not to mention that this particular film is part of a franchise in which production of films preceding Batman Begins have been heavily criticized. Nolan's continuation of the new trend set by Batman Begins and revival of the Joker, previously portrayed by Nicholson, will likely be criticized when the time comes. This is less likely to happen with most other films, which are stand-alone and not subject to being compared to a franchise that has preceded it, so I think it's just happenstance that there is more production-related information about this film in relation to most. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The tone is fine. I just think that a lot of the content is unencyclopediac. Open a copy of Variety and read an article on a movie, then open a copy of Encyclopedia Brittanica and read an article on a movie. Which one does this article resemble most? For example, I randomly chose the Filming section. It contains details of places they scouted and didn't end up using, and exact dates for shooting locations and the "truly remarkable experience" quote. Is this really notable? Can't we just say 'principal filming took place in Chicago, as well as Hong Kong, Liverpool etc'? And what does 'truly remarkable experience' mean? Did he get mugged? Did the citizens help out for free as extras? Compare these to the pieces about crew being killed and people thinking a terrorist attack occured, which I believe are notable enough for inclusion.Ashmoo (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the thing is, though, that Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't go into the level of detail concerning films (actually, I doubt they have articles for movies, as regular encyclopedias tend to be more history/science based). Wikipedia wants to have the best articles possible with as much cited information as possible. That's how film articles get to be GA's and FA's. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the content, unless it's uncited, which at a quick glance, I didn't see anything. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Wikipedia does not seek to have as much cited information as possible. The What wikipedia is not article outlines all the things editors shouldn't put in, even if verifiable. My problem with this article is mostly outlined under WP:NOT#INFO.
I think the Batman Begins article, which received a Good Article award, while still detailing a lot of production info, manages to avoid trivia and repeating press releases. It is a good example to use for this article. This is a good article, it just needs to be a bit more focuses to improve readability. Ashmoo (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ashmoo, the editors who worked on Batman Begins also work on The Dark Knight. I think that the key difference is that editors improved Batman Begins only after its release, while with The Dark Knight, we are adding on details as we go along. This is probably where the indiscriminate nature of the information comes from, but my belief is that when all is said and done, we can review the content and re-organize it to be more stationary. Can you point out what you think seems indiscriminate to you? Specific filming dates? I think Nolan's return to Chicago is significant because it shows the director's mutual relationship with the city, which benefits economically. Otherwise, there's content about the Batsuit and the Batcycle like there was content about the first Batsuit and the Batmobile in the article for Batman Begins. Specific observations would be helpful. Also, we are hoping to get Batman Begins to become a Featured Article in time for the release of The Dark Knight, so if you have any suggestions over there, they'd be welcome as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the WP:NOT#INFO page, Ashmoo, and I don't see this article fitting the description of any of the examples given. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The editor is not referring to any of the particular points under this section, but rather the purpose of the section: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." For example, if we had a newspaper article saying that Christian Bale enjoyed having a latte every morning before working on The Dark Knight, it would be verifiable, but it wouldn't be suitable for the article. So the editor believes that some of the information in this Wikipedia article, even if it's verifiable, is not suitable for encyclopedic purposes. Hence the disagreement we've had. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Erik, you've summarised my view pretty well. (I'd say that 5. News Report, is closests to my objection on WP:NOT. I'll get back with some specific suggestions later, when I've got more time (just started a new job yesterday). It's a good article, you editors should be proud. But I do think it needs a little tightening up to be more readable to non-'Batman movie' fans. Ashmoo (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New Interview...perhaps

There is a new interview (today) with Heath Ledger, about Joker. It's from LatinoReviews, which is not a reputable source. But there is an video interview attached. I would say that since it has an interview attached, it's most likely...real, and not a fake interview. I'm not sure whether to put it in or not. But it has some good Ledger quotes and info. http://latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-heath-ledger-on-playing-the-joker-3297 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordkelvin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Article about HK Filming from Verifiable Source

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/12/arts/AS-A-E-MOV-Hong-Kong-Batman.php

It's from the International Herald Tribune and AP (part of the NYT), and contains a lot of good information about their filming. If it seems important then, someone could add it in to the article.--Lordkelvin 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for providing the headline! Let's see what could be useful:
  • Bale as Batman jumping off the International Finance Centre seems like a big deal.
  • I've noticed this being mentioned about Hong Kong's waters, but Nolan denied that assumption. Not sure if it's non-information as a result, seeing that it's been frequently mentioned in the media.
  • Environmental activists criticizing October Pictures for keep the lights on at night to light up Hong Kong's skyline seems relevant to the difficulties found in production.
Thoughts on what else to add? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Good old Associated Press! Alientraveller 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Screen Magazine

Video Interview/Behind the Scenes by Imax.com

I'm not sure if this counts as "verifiable," but its from IMAX.com, pretty recognizable company. It has a few good tidbits about the IMAX shooting. http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/xtras/?dl=beo/screeningroom/btn1/dk/dk_prologue--Lordkelvin (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely verifiable, the footage is unquestionably authentic. Thank you for pointing this out, quite informative. As for new information, I think it has little to none. Unless people were unaware that the Dark Knight was filmed with IMAX technology and cameras. 72.49.198.90 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Anon
I had no idea it was. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well read the article. Alientraveller (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Viral websites

There's quite a few viral websites listed in External links... any ideas on how to reduce the page length -- perhaps a table of some sort to contain all these links? This is certainly a new phenomenon to be addressed by WikiProject Films... what if there's just too many official sites!?!!! Sorry, a lil' Joker in me itching to get out... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite an extraordinary amount of sites that was unveiled yesterday via The Gotham Times. Mind, some of them may drop dead by the time the film is out. Alientraveller (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.thegothamtimes.com
http://www.thehahahatimes.com
http://www.wearetheanswer.org
http://www.rememberinggina.org
http://www.gothampolice.com
http://gothamnationalbank.com
http://www.gothamcityrail.com/
http://www.whysoserious.com/personalityprofile/
http://www.rorysdeathkiss.com
http://www.whysoserious.com/
http://www.empireonline.com/heiscoming/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusk83 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.gothamcab.com/
http://acmesecuritysystems.com/
http://www.gvafoundation.org/
http://www.whysoserious.com/mausoleum/
http://www.gothamusd.net/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordkelvin (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that's helpful.--Lordkelvin (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez! We really need to get some background information about these websites... that is some serious viral marketing going on. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep updating the list. I just added one more.
at wearetheanswer.org you receive customized replies by submitting the names of cops from the batman universe.Djgranados (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well actually, they were not customized. It only recognized names such as Loeb, Gordon, and Flass. The correct names were the two cops mentioned on rememberinggina.org in which it would send back another email of the cops' badge numbers, which would need to be used for the next step in the viral marketing.--Lordkelvin (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
well actually, that would mean customized Djgranados (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
well, that's true I guess.--Lordkelvin (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone else get the phone call after submitting the names of the two cops to wearetheanswer?71.107.88.147 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is really getting out of hand. Is there not an external link somewhere else that compiles all these viral websites? The External links section is turning into an unnecessary link farm. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a wiki of all the website links, and it is constantly updating everyday. I agree that the article doesn't need to list every viral website. http://batman.wikibruce.com/Home --Lordkelvin 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
At first impression, I'm not too crazy about linking to it. Looking at the criteria, it couldn't be permitted under #13 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. However, it does say "normally", and we need an offshore link for all these viral websites. Can we not do better than this? I'd grudgingly accept it, but I think that in time, everything will be compiled in a better place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SFX

Just a shout-out to anyone that the latest issue with SFX magazine features an interview with Heath Ledger, who discusses the make-up for the character. I could check it myself to get down notes on page no.s, author etc, but just a note to everyone. It might not be worth it as it's so brief, but we got our first scrap of info. I read it on Batman on Film, but citing that page would be a copyright violation. Alientraveller (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to point out magazine articles, there is a good interview with Eric Roberts about Two-Face that contains spoilers about TDK from FHM magazine. Although, there are pics of the article, there is no online text of it. Thus...I'm not sure how verifiable that would be. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/tdkericroberts.jpg?t=1196052375
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/04112007921rz7.jpg?t=1196052374 --Lordkelvin (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if there's any value in it besides plot detail that would spoil the reader. When the film comes out, we can write about Maroni's role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New Pic of Joker

http://www.empireonline.com/heiscoming/ The whole picture will be released tomorrow, though it has been leaked today. http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8189/shffrpz12931291hb2.jpg --Lordkelvin (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd make an awesome image once we have information on Joker's make-up process. Alientraveller (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to the coverage this issue will provide. Also, it's possible there may be additional pictures inside the issue, right? I'm not crazy about including an entire magazine cover to tie into the appearance of the Joker. Seems like covers should be reserved for commentary that would be directed at them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me, I'll have to have a look at SFX too as well as citing what interests me in my subscription to the magazine. If nothing new is offered, ah well, maybe I can consolidate cites. Alientraveller (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The article and picture are officially uncovered at the website. Here is the article that accompanies the picture. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=21560--Lordkelvin (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have the full text of the article. But it isn't from any verifiable source. How does one go about citing something from a magazine article?--Lordkelvin (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's completely acceptable to use print sources. Just use the Cite news template and leave the url= and accessdate= attributes empty, since they're for online details only. Is there a lot of information to implement or what? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/empirejokerpage1js9.jpg?t=1196455635
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/tztelw3/empirejokerpage2ap9.jpg?t=1196455635
Above are the scanned images. I haven't written anything in the article yet, but the article contains some good info. --Lordkelvin 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've incorporated it mate. Alientraveller 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The main article says that a seven minute preview of the Dark Knight will be shown in IMAX presentations of the film 'I Am Legend'. Not long after it says, a five minute preview of the beginning of the Dark Knight will be shown at the start of 'I Am Legend'. So yeah, I'm not sure which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.200.151 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it to be consistent, though another editor may need to check about the accuracy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Batcycle

Since the Batcycle has been replaced with an image of the Joker for the time being, I'll put a link to it here so it can be restored when there's enough critical commentary all around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, the image has a FUR for the Batcycle page. Alientraveller 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, true... I didn't look that closely. Nix that, then. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TDK Prologue Early Screenings

Many sites have reported back after seeing early screenings of TDK. There are a lot of spoilers, though. However, some important things to note is that the clip is in fact 6 minutes, not 7 or 5, and is definitely a clip from the movie. Nolan also introduces the clip in the beginning. The MTV article also states how Nolan is aiming for a 140 minute film.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1575671/20071203/story.jhtml
http://www.wizarduniverse.com/movies/batmanbegins2/006550689.cfm
--Lordkelvin 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Alientraveller 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! You're awesome! 74.215.118.142 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Anon

Official Poster

http://whysoserious.com/steprightup/poster.htm --Lordkelvin (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it, but it's already up. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's official: Scarecrow will be back

FYI, see the last paragraph in this article: Boucher, Geoff. " Dark Knight sneak lights up IMAX screen", Los Angeles Times, 7 December 2007. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a working URL for some of us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
To save those that don't want to register, (Erik found a non-register link) here is the paragraph. Interpret how you see fit.

"Cillian Murphy, who played the villain Scarecrow in "Batman Begins," is also in the cast credits, but Nolan only smirked when asked if that suggested that Batman would have three villains to deal with this time around. "He is in the film briefly, yes, but I don't want to give away all of our surprises."

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. Why would any "interpretation" be necessary though? We finally have a reliable source: the LA Times is reporting that Murphy is in the official credits and Nolan confirms he's in it. Anyway, I thought I'd allow y'all to work it into the article. --Melty girl (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The "interpretation" I was referring to was how to present the information in the article. Whether to just state "Nolan has confirmed Murphy" is in the film, or to say that Scarecrow is in the film, since Nolan doesn't explain how Murphy is in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've included Murphy now, with an explanation of what Scarecrow did in the first film, because we don't know anything of the character's role this time. Alientraveller (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nolan only said Murphy will be in the credits. For all we know, Murphy could be in the "Special Thanks" section and not appear in the movie at all, or maybe he provided vocals for the music score. I'm just playing devil's advocate, here; I hope the Scarecrow is back. 63.139.169.49 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been "known" for a while that Scarecrow will be back. There are a bunch of set pics of him with a chechen gang in his costume and full attire. It couldn't be put onto Wikipedia until now due to the issues of verifiability. --Lordkelvin (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of bordering on synthesis, saying that "here's a picture of what appears to be Scarecrow" and here's Nolan's words that say "Murphy is listed in the cast credits", so that means it must be Scarecrow. The pictures aren't anymore verifiable now than they were before, and I just don't like listing Murphy as a character when Nolan was really vague about what Murphy will be doing in the film. Not that I think it should go without mention, because I don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but that's just a case then of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the least, put him in the cast list. He's been confirmed. Just say "Nolan has confirmed Murphy will return, but details concerning his return are unknown." Anakinjmt (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, how is it a case of "IDON'TLIKEIT", when I clearly said that he needs to be mentioned in the article? Secondly, he IS mentioned in the article already. The debate is about how we should, or if we should, interpret Nolan's words in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Then we take LA Times' word for it, and Nolan's nod to a "brief part". That's called not spelling it out. Alientraveller (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cake Promotion

I have added a paragraph describing the cake/cell phone promotion that was used by the production company to invite members of the press to the film's premiere and it has been deleted twice. The link used to source the promotion leads to a video clip posted by extremely well known gossip columnist Perez Hilton as he unveils the cake itself and shows the viewer how the promotion worked. The last person who deleted this content apparently had no idea who Perez Hilton is; try google. TheGoonSquad (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a better source, YouTube cannot be cited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Should have posted here first. How's this: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12518 ? joshschr (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That website would work better, but if it's to be re-implemented, I suggest providing a more concise description. The detail about the cake that accompanied the YouTube citation was borderline indiscriminate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a follow-up: Comic Book Resources. The end of the article says that there'll be a full report later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New International Poster

http://www.omelete.com.br/images/galerias/thedarkknight/posterexclusivoomelete.jpg I'll try to get a more verifiable source. It might take a day. But I'm 99.9% sure it is real, as of now.--Lordkelvin (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better source: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6603 Franshu (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New Trailers / 7 minutes in IMAX

I heard from a friend that a new trailer for "The Dark Knight" would be shown at the beginning of the new "I Am Legend" movie...and yes there was a nice long 3 minute or so trailer...

I checked youtube and apple trailers and wasn't able to find it...it is a very exciting trailer... if anyone finds a link, post it up.

I also heard, in conjunction to the new trailer theory, that IMAX was going to show 5 minutes of the beginning of The Dark Knight, and 2 minutes in the middle of the movie...all this before the movie I Am Legend starts...in IMAX.

So if you were to go watch I am Legend in IMAX, you'd get to see 7 minutes of the new batman movie...

Anyone see I am Legend in IMAX last night? --Huper Phuff talk 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6602 --Huper Phuff talk 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article. So if one goes to see I Am Legend in IMAX, they'll see this film's first six minutes. Alientraveller (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Poster consensus

I'd like to initiate discussion here to ensure that we don't keep changing the poster repeatedly. Now, IMP Awards shows three Joker-related posters, while the current poster image is another poster not involving the Joker. Unfortunately, with poster images, the input can be rather subjective. I've generally had the stance of choosing an English-language poster that shows as much detail of the film as possible (as opposed to a mere logo). Obviously, that approach can't be taken with the current batch. However, I would want to stick with the current poster with Batman overlooking Gotham City as I feel that we've addressed the appearance of the Joker sufficiently (and directly) in the body of the article. Any thoughts on sticking with this so we can avoid a cycle of poster changes via consensus? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the poster with Batman overlooking Gotham City is fine. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to be a pain, but I'd like to have the Joker poster with the "Why so serious?" smile graffiti in the infobox. That way, we can bring back the Batpod into the article and maybe have something relate to Dent in the Marketing section? Just a thought to make everything less Joker-centric. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that changing the poster to the smile graffiti one would make it Joker-centric. We have no actual representation of Batman in the article, though I think there seems to be interest in restoring the Batpod and Batsuit images when more information becomes available. We have a clear picture of the Joker in the article, and I don't think that the restoration of the Batpod image would really compensate for the lack of Batman. Right now, the three non-poster images are actually Joker-related -- the IMAX filming, the direct shot, and the marketing website screen shot. I think we'd be better off waiting until additional posters are released, especially the one-sheet. (Hopefully, it won't suck like POTC 3.) For Dent, though, I don't think that the vandalized political campaign image has as much weight as the viral campaign that involved the collaboration of fans. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trailer Officially Released Online

I think we can cite stuff from the trailer now. Maybe we could have before, I dunno. http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm --Lordkelvin (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Trailers can hold misleading information, so we generally don't cite them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my bad then. --Lordkelvin (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't anything big. Just, when you think about what happens in trailers, sometimes they can be cut and splice together out of order--with dialogue from one scene accompanying a different scene, and giving the illusion that the topic is directed at the scene appearing. An example would be The Prestige, which contained a scene of Michael Cain talking about a "real" magician, but with the images appearing on screen it was insinuated that the "real" magician was Christian Bale...which it wasn't--or sometimes use scenes that are eventually cut from the final film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fine. I understand. I didn't mean to sound mopey. --Lordkelvin (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thedarkknight.com is updated

It now links to the trailer, is that important to note?--Lordkelvin (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It could save us on external links, if we can consolidate links to a single website that hosts more than one topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Skin disease according to the article? I believe this is wrong

Where did this source come from. I mean, the caption for the Joker picture, "The Joker's make-up is meant to resemble a skin disease because he does not remove or reapply it." I will remove it if thats okay with everyone.--Lordkelvin (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the original wording that Alientraveller had before. I think some IPs have just screwed around with the caption over time and rendered it incorrect. Does it work now? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Wow, Alientraveller wrote that? I really like the wording. --Lordkelvin (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like original research to me. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation tag in the neighboring passage has been replicated to follow the caption. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back again...the caption of the joker under filming says: "The Joker's make-up reflects the grungy nature of his character, resembling an infection as he continues to not reapply it" --Huper Phuff talk 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys aren't getting it. It's not that he has skin disease, it's just that the look of his makeup is like skin disease. This is the original wording of the Empire article, which probably started this whole thing.

"What the director has done," says Caine, "which is so clever, is that the Joker has left the make-up and just let it rot off. It is never renewed. He's got a big, wide mouth and it gradually almost looks like bad skin disease."

IMO, we should change the wording slightly so that people don't get confused.201.230.155.36 (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Since there were no changes to it, I went ahead and slightly reworded it to remove some of the confusion...

The Joker's make-up reflects the grungy nature of his character. The style in which his make-up is applied resembles an infection as the "Joker has left the make-up and just let it rot off".

Feel free to edit it, but I think that makes the idea more clear. --Huper Phuff talk 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions about the Joker

Mark Hamill gives his approval too. Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this real concept art

look here http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=215864911 now i know it is myspace and i know there is much possiblity that it could not be concept for @ Face but the right side in my opinion does look like arron eckart. I can't find any source from where this picture came from. Could someone help me out here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.82.245 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fan art. Alientraveller (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

oh well thats a damn good piece of fan art work, but seriously i thought it was acuatl concepts for the movie. thanks!

Haven't been any concept art or pictures of two-face yet--Lordkelvin (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's Bruce Timm's version of Two Face from Batman The Animated series, not fan art. 26 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.199.180 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Joker wearing make-up

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing over whether the Joker is just a nutcase in make-up. Here's the original quote:

“ IGN: And what about the decision to have Joker wear make-up rather than be altered by chemicals. Was it just easier from a storytelling perspective to have him wear make-up than to explain how chemicals changed him?
Nolan: Well, we never wanted to do an origin story for the Joker in this film. The arc of the story is much more Harvey Dent's; the Joker is presented as an absolute. It's a very thrilling element in the film, and a very important element, but we wanted to deal with the rise of the Joker not the origin of the Joker, if that makes sense.		 ”

Nolan completely dodged the question, brilliantly I might add. So it's better to just leave in the understanding of how Nolan wishes to focus on Dent's arc and not make this "Joker Begins". Either the character's origin is left completely ambigious, or there'll be major revelation in the picture itself of him actually having vitiligo or something, it's best we just understand Nolan's story intentions until the film comes out. Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Joker section

Is the information on who could have played The Joker relevant anymore? That section looks so cluttered with sources and with names that it doesn't read nearly as easily as it could. --CmdrClow (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still useful information on the casting process. We can revisit the issue after the release, when the article will probably see lots of drive-by editing. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's worth keeping because it seems rare in cinema for actors to have expressed such an interest in a role before production even began. The "reputation" of the Joker role, if you will. As for it looking cluttered, perhaps we could move all the interested-actor citations to the end of the sentence? From what I can tell of the citations, we wouldn't be confused about which belongs to which with the clear title. Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
One concern of mine is where exactly do we place the popularity of the role so as to not distract from actual issues like Batman and Two-Face. Either we could study this in a "Pre-release reaction" section regarding the actors who were interested before Nolan and Ledger realized this was their chance to work together, as well as reaction from fans (Del Toro, Loeb, Dini) or previous portrayers (Hamill, Nicholson). That, or show how the Joker is such a popular character and how everybody has their own interpretation of him, which would benefit his articles. Alientraveller (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, whaddya think? Alientraveller (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice restructuring. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The popularity of the role before the casting process seems like it would be better placed in the Joker's "in other media" article since it pertains specifically to that character, and is not necessarily essential to learning about the film. --CmdrClow (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Interview with Nolan

It's about Joker and Dent. Sorry if it's been posted. It came out today anyway. It has some interesting things like, the movie is predominately about Dent, etc.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-dark13jan13,1,6582601.story?coll=la-entnews-movies&ctrack=1&cset=true --Lordkelvin (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It says "log in"Franshu (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Try this: They're in good company on the side of evil; here's another alternative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We pretty much get the point across in the Development section as to the film's focus on Dent with the Joker as a plot device rather than a character. Thanks anyway to Lordkelvin and Erik. Alientraveller (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on filming in Bedfordshire, England

Here's two sources for anyone that wants to add in information about filming over here (in my home county - WOO!):

-- Harish - 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"But I really tried to read the comics and put it down."

According to the interview with Heath Ledger on IESB.net, when asked what specific comics inspired his interpretation of the Joker, he mentioned The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum, and "[trying] to read the comics and put it down." Given the context of the question, I interpreted this to mean 'putting it down' in his performance, that is, having the Joker's depiction in these comics adapted to film to some extent. However, the wikipedia page for The Dark Knight currently cites the aforementioned interview as meaning that Ledger attempted to utilize these comics in his interpretation, but ultimately decided against it due to an indifference toward the medium of comic books in general, and 'put them down' in the sense of deciding against reading them. Where Ledger has stated that he 'hates comic book movies' in a prior interview [[2]], which may have been taken out of context regardless, should this be taken to mean that the actor did or did not utilize these writings in his performance. Where I admit that this may be a fairly trivial point, it would seem somewhat misinformative to cite an interview out of context. 24.24.90.148 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you're right. I've replaced it with the actual ambigious quote. When I was putting the information, I had been subconsciously intepreted it that way because of his previous interview regarding comic book movies. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger's Death

Has there been any news anywhere on how the death of Heath Ledger will or will not affect this film?BassBone (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Combined simultaneous topics) Ledger was in the middle of filming for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, so it's not determinable at this point which film he was able to complete. So right now, there's no verifiability about the bearing his death may have on this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to IMDB the film is in post-production, so it may very entirely be a non-issue . --uana·uerba·sunt (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Marketing and promotion will almost definitely be affected, though, not to mention the fate of his character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Heath Ledger should be listed as having died or as being the late Heath Ledger (by strict definition, "the late" refers only to those who are lately (i.e. recently) deceased). Some people are stating that since everyone eventually dies, there's no point in listing his death—but very few actors die between the completion of filming and the finished product. His death will likely have a profound impact on many aspects of the film, not the least of which would be editing and marketing. For those claiming that 100 years from now, it won't matter that he just died, well, the first sentence of the article begins "The Dark Knight is an upcoming American superhero film". Surely that sentence won't remain unchanged in even the next few months. There will be those (e.g. me) who read this article in the run-up to the film who will want to know how his death has affected production. $wgUser (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course Ledger's death will be eventually mentioned, but it needs to be in the context of this film. He was already filming his next film, so there's no telling what this means for The Dark Knight. We can't speculate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be mention unless it is shown that it affected the film in some way. Filming ended, so it isn't like he died during the process of making the movie. Unless it is determined that they have to reshoot some scenes and they get a stand-in for him, then it's merely a trivial note. It isn't like the deaths on The Twilight Zone, which occurred during the actual filming of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Chances are it won't make too much of a difference to the film, even if they do have to reshoot, take a look at The Crow (film) Greebowarrior (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All the details about his death should not be mentioned, especially not speculatively tied to sleep deprivation from Ledger's role preparation. This claim is completely unsubstantiated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to an interview with ledger he had already finished filming his parts, interview can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKa-aDga1fE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonshinkins (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this is relevant, but to be honest this is what I like about responsible Wikipedia users. Even though I posted it in the article, nothing should be noted until there is definitive evidence that it was a direct link between his death and an overdose on sleeping pills with the dependency being caused by the film. I was so anxious to be the one to update the article that I didn't look at things and wait for things to be definite fact rather than probable facts. Even then it's a matter of opinion, but in that case I would believe this is important to place in the article. --DavidFuzznut (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It may affect the next Batman movie, actually, as there were strong rumors that he would appear in the third movie again. This isn't anything I think should be put in, but I just wanted it to put it out there. They're 100% done with filming, I know that. It's still pretty shocking, I must say. This isn't a discussion board, so I digress. --Lordkelvin (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the talk page, but right now, there's not even a connection between Ledger's role preparation and his death at this point. He already began shooting scenes for the new film, so there's nothing we can say right now about Ledger. We've found out the news quickly, and I'm sure that filmmakers will find out and need time to figure out the next step. We'll waiting for their verifiable statements to include if it's relevant to this film article or the other one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought to all: It may be worth noting down the road, with a reliable source, that this is Heath Ledger's last completed film (depending on how much he got done with the other one) or that this is Heath Ledger's latest major role, depending on the degree of his role in the new film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although that was added to the film, I removed it, pending some reliable sources speaking about that matter nd the newer film he was working on. ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact he died before the film's release is notable and should not be omitted, however. And it is a guarantee that it will affect the film's marketing. 23skidoo (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no guarantees in life, and this may not affect the film at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's been 12 hours, folks, and this is just a movie. Let his body cool, give others time to react and grieve, and we'll get our citations in due time. Patience is a virtue. relax, go work on other articles. There are plenty out there to improve, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just heard my local news program (in NY) say that the movie is pushed to November. I hope this isn't true. Some news people carelessly report stuff sometimes. --Lordkelvin (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i was thinking wed put a triva section up containing the factoid

"This will be HEath Ledger's Last film..." and moention his death (normally id do it myself but you poretected the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, we appreciate your effort, but trivia sections are generally frowned upon. We try to integrate any useful information into the rest of the article instead of having an unorganized list of random factoids. Don't worry, there will likely be commentary about how Ledger's death will impact The Dark Knight. It's too early at this point, so we gotta sit on our hands and wait. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just Ignore the fact that Heath Ledger died

For wikipedia's sake. Let's just never acknowlege it so we can keep our precious article intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.164.167 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

  • The Associated Press: "Curiosity to see Ledger's final performance will likely further stoke interest in the summer blockbuster."
  • Animation Magazine: "Warner Bros. may have to alter its marketing approach a bit, considering a lot of it prominently features Ledger in arch-villain mode."
  • Entertainment Weekly: "I'm sure no one will be able to watch that one either without seeing unintended ironies and eerie portents of doom."

Some headlines I've found so far regarding his death's impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note all - use of "The late" Heath Ledger is not appropriate for this article or any. All actors pass away and Wiki rarely passes "the late" reference in use. Otherwise we'd have the term written on almost every movie page eventually! Timmah86 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that the film will be dedicated to the memory of Heath, so you'll be re-editing this page for a long time if disagreements continue. It's best to just refer to him as 'the late Heath Ledger' a few times, and leave in the mention of his death, as a mark of respect, if nothing else. Then again, this place seems to be run by suits, who seem to be totally void of emotion... (EDIT: common sense too) - Mittens2317 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittens2317 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't say the people who supposedly "run" this place are void of emotion. This is an encyclopedia, it's not supposed to be emotional. It's not a memorial for him.GrahameS (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) None of us are void of emotion over this tragedy. We are only keeping it in check because we are involved as editors in this Wikipedia, steadfastly remaining neutral even in the light of shocking events. We save our emotions for outside this talk page; here, we responsibly discuss how his death will affect the film, and how to shape the article accordingly. It is not "fairly obvious" that the film will be dedicated to Heath Ledger; it is mere speculation at this point. In addition, it will be reflected in time what his death means for this film. This wasn't his last; he was filming The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. We need to remain tasked to verifiable information from reliable sources, not to our subjective beliefs of this event's impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to add a Release section addressing Ledger's death, partially because we have some independent suggestions available and partially to appease the constant editing this article will undergo. Thoughts on my addition? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is what must be done: Nothing for the moment, not until someone related to this film makes a public talk about Ledger (what, I´m sure, will happen pretty soon). Then we can quote him/her and add it to the article. That´s my opinion, though.Franshu (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that the studio has released its condolences, but I'm not sure if anyone related to the film would say much about how Ledger's death would impact it. I imagine they'd say the usual and figure out a strategy (which may take time) to address that impact. In the meantime, we have verifiable coverage from reasonably reliable sources about the possibilities. They may not stay there forever, but they seem to be OK for now, touching on different possibilities with Ledger's death. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, Euges116 thinks that the paragraph in the Release section are "unsubstantiated statements", despite my direct quotations of the headlines at the beginning of the Break section. Can someone review this situation and see if there really is an issue with the paragraph? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted to stress stemming from before he died. If we mention his stress while filming making this film in isolation it implies that this film was responsible for his death. Either we leave his sleeplessness out or put in the context of his general stress levels.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the facts speak for themselves. In addition, I've moved EW's statement to the cast section. I think those other cites are good though if we want to discuss Ledger's death and its effect on promotion of the film. Alientraveller (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
By stating that he couldn't sleep during filming implies that that was the only stress in his life. The fact is, it wasn't. That makes the entry incorrect. We either remove the incorrect statement or clarify it. This is an encylopedia, not a gossip range. Making implications and saying "so be it" doesn't cut it.
10:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was in the article before he died and is about his getting into character as the Joker. I'm not sure how that statement suddenly becomes gossip after he dies just because it could be spun to have some relevance. If people (rather strangely IMO) assume that was the only stress in his life, I'm not sure we can do much about that. WjBscribe 10:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It was incorrect *before* he died. It's only since that I've discovered that fact. The amount of time between an untruth being added and it being discovered doesn't make it any more untrue and neither does any event - related or unrelated - that occurs between times. Implying that the only stress in his life was playing this role is untrue. And we shouldn't be defending untruths.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And what do you mean "his stress playing a later role"? Read the link still in the text [3] Where he talks about having filmed the role as Dylan while in London filming Batman.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected - an earlier/concurrent role not a later one. I still don't see the relevance as this artice covers his role as the Joker, not other roles - that said, the interview does seem to suggest that the disturbed sleep patterns are usual for him - " as often happens when he throws himself into a part, he is not sleeping much." I was distracted by the red herring of possible connections to his death. Given that it doesn't say he had any more stress or trouble sleeping playing the Joker than any other role, I agree with the removal of the sleep sentence alltogether. WjBscribe 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? Then how is it relevant to his time playing The Joker?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I agree and have removed the sentence. WjBscribe 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for identify Ledger as “the late Heath Ledger” in the introduction.

I attempted to make this edit earlier, but it was undone. I suspect the user who reversed my edit was just doing their job, and trying to protect the article from being more about Ledger’s death than the film. I assure you, my minor edit was not a careless one, and I feel that the introduction would benefit from it. Here are my justifications:

1) Not mentioning it in the intro makes the article seem out of date 2) It acknowledges his death (solving the above issue), without requiring any elaboration. 3) While it is true that “the late” is not added to the names of all deceased actors, this case is unusually since the film will be released after the actor’s death. These two words make this clear, again without requiring further explanation. Xargon666x6 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm just subsectioning so we don't get too many Ledger topics. Thing is, I wouldn't mind identifying him as "late" in the lead. But it's a bit excessive to rewrite the cast section; we already have EW's statement on how his death will affect viewing of the film. Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about that cast section. I'm only talking about the one time his named is used in the opening paragraph. Xargon666x6 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how adding "the late" to the lead benefits the article. We don't add "the late" to all of Humphrey Bogart's films, or Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, or anyone else for that matter. If it's to keep up to date, at what point do we say "we don't need the 'late'" part? Again, why does it need to be used in the first place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC)We don't need it. We should avoid Recentism, and focus on the facts relevant to the article topic, which we have already done. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at a couple of other articles that were last movies by an actor: TMNT and the 1986 Transformers movie.
The intro of TMNT ended with:

"It is also the last film by Mako Iwamatsu."

In the cast section there was this paragraph:

"TMNT was Mako Iwamatsu's last film prior to his death. Mako was announced as the voice of Splinter at the San Diego Comic-Con on 20 July 2006. He then passed away the next day. A dedication to Mako appears at the end of the film's credits. This is the second TMNT film to include a dedication, the other being Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze which was dedicated to Jim Henson."

In Transformers, there was a paragraph in the cast section

"This was Orson Welles's final film. He was in declining health during production. Shortly before he died, he told his biographer, Barbara Leaming, that he had spent the day "playing a toy" in a movie about toys who "do horrible things to each other." Film historian Joseph McBride quotes Welles saying of his participation: "I play a planet. I menace somebody called Something-or-other. Then I'm destroyed." Welles' voice was apparently so weak by the time he made his recording that technicians needed to run it through a synthesizer to salvage it. The voicework for Transformers: The Movie was the last movie project he worked on; his voice session was on 5 October 1985, and five days later on 10 October 1985, Welles died of a heart attack."

Neither movie mentioned about the deceased actor being "late". I think there should be a brief mention in the cast section, followed by any other relevent information that comes later. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Ledger's death is mentioned in the cast section: second paragraph, last sentence regarding Entertainment Weekly and their opinion. Alientraveller (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me, at least for now. If any furthur information is revealed about his death that has an impact on the movie or the movie's impact on Ledger, then we should add that information only. Anything else would be fluff. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, "the late" does not belong on the lead or on the main article. By the way QuasiAbstract, you missed The Misfits (film); both Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe died soon afterwards.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I did...though I haven't seen that movie. Oh well. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, not necessary. We don't do this to the vast majority of other articles. I checked 12 Angry Men as a random reference, as well as Henry Fonda. Neither of those pages has "the late" within it (the latter refers once to "the late 1920s"). If we don't use it on classics like Fonda, I think it's safe to say that WikiPrecedent is well-cast in this regard. A single line mention that Ledger died in 2008 prior to the film's release would be sufficient. No need to elaborate, just have the name linked somewhere for the curious reader (when I heard, the HL page was the FIRST place I went while waiting for the newscast to get to it). VigilancePrime (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree this is completely unnecessary here. -- lucasbfr talk 14:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Change on official website regarding Ledger

If you go to thedarkknight.warnerbros.com now, they have a message/memorial for Heath Ledger. I'm not sure if that's important to mention. They also added a black ribbon on whysoserious.com, in memoriam of Ledger. Maybe not. --Lordkelvin (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep that ribbon's for Heath if you noticed when that message burns away it's right next to his face this is a sad time for all batman and ledger fans. This is only the second actor who's play joker who's died all the the rest of them are still alive from Jack to Mark they're still around but, heath and Romero the men who's played the character where everybody thing it's spot on for the time are gone

RIP Romero and Heath—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protect Joker

This page is going to get out of hand, I ask for a admin to semi protect or completely protect the page.

I have a feeling that this page is going to get edited too many times when the movie hasn't even come out yet, people are already trying to change things to "The Late" Heath Ledger and things of that nature. Protect this page please.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I use for example, the Chris Benoit page when he died as a example of how this page can quickly get out of hand.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) The Heath page is more likely to get out of hand. The Benoit thing was bigger because #1 its wrestling fans and they tend to vandalise more and #2 he murdered his wife and kids. Changing it form the late to just his name isnt something to protect the page for.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph re: Nolan's take on the Joker

"Nolan was initially unsure of returning for the sequel, but eventually decided upon creating a new interpretation of the Joker, based on the villain's original appearances in comic book lore." It seems to me that this should either be rephrased to indicate that this is what Nolan THINKS he is doing (with a citation), or removed as original research (or simple falsehood.) The facts of the interpretation in the film that have already been verified by cast and crew are that this Joker is a knife-fetishist with facial scarring, greasy makeup, (poorl) dyed hair, and punk sensibilities. That's hardly the Joker as depicted in his original appearances, who is eerie (as opposed to bats***-crazy), methodical, and does not at any real point DIRECTLY kill anyone (choosing as he does to use hidden gas and the like)- and who is at no point indicated to have any facial attributes other than the color of his skin, lips, and hair. (In fact, the idea that the Joker has anything wrong with his actual mouth at all (the "frozen grin") was only introduced in the first Burton Batman movie- he's often been shown in the comics to have an unusually wide grin but also the usual variety of facial expressions.)206.218.218.49 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The citations for this line are in the Development section:

Nolan was initially unsure of whether he would return, but felt that he did want to reinterpret the Joker on screen.[1] After much research, his brother and co-writer Jonathan Nolan suggested the character's first two appearances be their influence. The director "felt like we've actually come around to something eerily close to those first two stories."[2] Jerry Robinson, one of the Joker's co-creators, was consulted on the character's portrayal.[3]

The lead is merely a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore does not require citations (as per WP:LEAD), as long as the facts it presents are cited elsewhere. Steve T • C 16:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand where it's taken from- I am simply saying that what we have here is Nolan's assertion- we do not have a fact. It is a WP trope that people are not considered good sources for their own actions, histories, etc. When someone independent of the film watches it or reads the script and says, "This version of the Joker is clearly based on his original appearances in the comics," then it's fair to use it. Quoting someone who is actually involved in the making of the film, and who is demonstrably wrong, is NOT appropriate, based on the precedent established by other articles. I'm not saying the line should be removed- simply altered to say, "Nolan has suggested that..." or something of that sort. The same way that in other articles for in-production films (like the new Indiana Jones) it is considered acceptable to say, "Spielberg things "Indiana Jones and the..." is the best of the series," but having an intro saying "Indiana Jones and the..." is the best of the series" in the lede based on that quote would be strictly verboten. It would be like putting in the lede for Bill Clinton, "He did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky." Sure, we can find numerous citations of Clinton saying that- but it still isn't true. Nolan says the new version of Joker is based on this first appearance in the comics. And this is clearly not true- and it's not citable unless someone NOT connected with the production say it's true. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense — these are the people who are making the film. Nolan drew inspiration from the Joker's first appearance just as many people since the 1970s: he made the Joker a cold-blooded murderer and robber going after the high-profile people of Gotham. The Joker has no origin: he had no origin for his first eleven years of existence. Nolan is definitely not taking inspiration from Cesar Romero. If this is all about the Joker merely wearing make-up and having greasy hair, that is really your own opinion as to what defines the character. Alientraveller (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Bunk. A creative source, speaking on the record, as in a public interview, is a fine source for information, esp. when the interview is published in a reasonable source. Further, much of what he states is also public material in the form of a press release. Your Clinton example is a strawman, as it does not speak to the same sort of information provided. A better example would be Gov. Bill Clinton speaking in 1992 about what he intended to do as president for the Nat'l debt, as he's describing his own intended policies, just as Nolan spoke on his policy towards The Joker. Nolan is not malking a statement which can be contradicted, only evaluated by his actions. For example, critics may shoot up the movie, sayign it fails to achieve a grandiose Joker performance, and fails as well to deliver characte development. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hold on now. I know what the editor is trying to say. It's like the intended / unintended themes. For example, a filmmaker may intend to portray the main character as a hero, but he's seen by academic scholars as the paragon of misogyny. For this film, the director has explained how he has approached the character. Since the film is not yet out, others cannot pass judgment about the accuracy of Nolan's attempted portrayal or cannot share their own interpretation of the character. When the film comes out, why can both perspectives not coexist? Nolan is not trying to say, "I'm going to make the best Joker ever," but he cites the influences. When the film comes out, we can keep an eye out for sources saying, "The Joker appears closer to this particular incarnation than that incarnation." Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
that' what we usually do, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying Nolan's inherently unreliable, because he's tied to the subject, and shouldn't be used at all. We've reported all this as Nolan's statements, and we've done so with citation. That's what's required. That others don't concur, or see his vision will be covered in the reaction section when it's out, as we always do, providing balanced coverage, as wikipedia needs when possible. ThuranX (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I get from his comment at all. I don't think there's a problem with having Nolan's feelings vis a vis his interpretation be known, in the article, as long as it's clear that it is taken from a quote from Nolan. The issue anonymous poster raises is that it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph of an article, which is supposed to lay out the objective facts and typically is not cited. He is also correct that there is precedent on WP of profilee's statements being given less weight than the public record- it is, after all, one of the reasons why editing one's OWN article is strongly discouraged. I think all parties could (or at least, should) be satisfied if we report on Nolan's comments and cite them in the article, but leave only the objective facts in the intro.ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I'd like to explain the removal of "dilemma of his vigilante crusade". That is the core conflict for Batman, and he deals with that "dilemma" on a continual basis, so there's really nothing new here for Dark Knight. I also rephrased the bit about the Joker, because "escalation ... situation ... personified ... portrayed" was, well, bad. EAE (Holla!) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Posthumousness

This film qualifies as a member of Category:Posthumous works in the same way as Queen of the Damned (film), The Crow (film), and even more so than Bad Santa. Ledger was the second-most important actor in the film, and the timing of his death before the film's release justifies the categorization. EAE (Holla!) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Iv'e started a discussion of this where it belongs. Until that is settled, do not readd the category. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the mystery discussion location is Category_talk:Posthumous_works. cheers, --guyzero | talk 07:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no mystery. The Category is vague, I discussed it at the category's page, as this is not the only page affected. Please avoid cheapshot sniping comments like that in the future. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing cheap about pointing out the mysteriousness of an unlinked "where it belongs". The discussion here was about whether this film belongs in that category; the discussion there is about whether that category should be deleted. Those are two separate discussions, and they belong in different places. EAE (Holla!) 07:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A "psychopathic, mass murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy".

Seeing as several members of the tabloid news media (which is pretty much everyone on the 24/7 news channels) are taking this quote out of context and apparently missing the point (or doing it on purpose) regards to the other one they've latched on to about his sleeping habits. At the very least I think the word "cheerfully" is in much need of inclusion seeing as it was used by the writer of the story to describe Heath Ledger how explained it, I think doing so would do a lot to put the quote in its proper context. In fact I think I'll do it now. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Really. This is the actor's description of the character, and I think "cheerful" sounds unintentionally informal and humorous. Alientraveller (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
ARGH I was updating my initial comment to expand it oh well, it'll stay. Cheerfully is the word used by the writer to describe Ledger while he was describing the character. In my opinion it informs the reader of this article that Ledger wasn't "troubled" by the character as some have made him out to be, using that exact same quote. It's like leaving out a word like "sarcastically" to describe how someone says something that, without the proper context could be taken in a way that's completely different than what the person said. In my opinion, it's a similar situation with excluding the word. In this case his mood when describing his role shows that it wasn't troubling him in the way the media is trying to spin it, perhaps you can explain as to why putting a quote into into proper context is informal, that's how the writer described him. Anyway since it didn't save, this is what I was going to include in my initial comment when I went to edit it. He's also said it was the most fun he's had or ever will have playing a character in the video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKa-aDga1fE . PHOENIXZERO (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please.

Please as a sign of respect to Heath Ledger can you please add that this is his final film, as well as maybe his best work since The the patriot. I hope they put a in memory of Heath Ledger at the start or end of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.208.61 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if it's his "best work" or not since none of us have seen it and even still that'd be a NPOV violation, unless it's maybe the consensus of many published film critics. With Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" apparently be canceled it might be appropriate to include a mention of it being his final completed film. But that'll be up to someone else to decide whether it's worth mentioning now or not. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)