Jump to content

Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

trailer

Hey, does anyone know anything about any official trailer(s) that have been released, and can add a section about them? Thus far, almost all the "trailers" I've seen are fake. Thanks. 70.251.75.230 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie doesnt come out for another year, and they've revealed very little so far, so I highly doubt there's been any trailers. DurinsBane87 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a 18-20 seconds teaser trailer on YouTube.com....ive seen it...its not fake....it starts by showing the jokers card and you hear him laugh...but u dont see him...its not very long. it definately is a tease tho. -Double D-

Added direct link to trailer at whysoserious Scott.lyon 06:02, 28 July 2007 (GMT)

Gothan City Blow up ships

Someone has stated that they were an extra for an evacuee in Gothan city and were placed on some ships with green screens where the Joker blows everything up. Look here. www.hollywoodchicago.com/2007/07/exclusive-photos-of-gotham-ships-at.html Can we add this somewhere in the article?

No. I stopped reading at "anonymous contribution" Not attributable or sourceable. DurinsBane87 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie Poster

I've added the movie, taken from flixster (http://www.flixster.com/photos.do?imageId=7486827&gallery=moviePhotos769959054). Squadoosh 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a fake. Alientraveller 10:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely fake. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you guys know it's a fake? Squadoosh 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Because I know a poster on Superherohype.com made it. Alientraveller 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast and characters

I'd like to merge the paragraphs in Cast and characters to the relevant character entries (Joker, Dent, Dawes). Would this be agreeable? I doubt we'd have much more character descriptions beyond a sentence, so it seems worthwhile to add some real-world context to each casting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? The characters are so rich, it seems premature considering how much depth the film will have. Alientraveller 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be a more fulfilling entry in an encyclopedic sense. Each entry (most of them) would have real-world context. It seems to me that it would be less of a "Let's list all the characters because they're recognized elsewhere in the franchise" fanboy section. Just a quick question: What happened to the information about Eckhart studying psychological aspects of the dual personality and similar topics for his role? I was thinking about it as something to include with his entry, but it's gone. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Eckhart never said anything about studying people with split-personalities. I checked that cite thoroughly. Alientraveller 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, not split-personalities, but this: "I'll be looking at other personalities to get an idea of how to play this complicated guy." We had a whole discussion about it in the last archive. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gamble

Does anyone really care that David Banner auditioned for the role? Is it really worth noting? Mcflytrap 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Alientraveller 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is that? Does every other film page list not-so-famous people that auditioned for a small role in a film? If it was a household name like Bill Clinton or Jesus Christ, I'd tend to agree with you. Mcflytrap 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant because of the role he auditioned for, that of a named villian expectedd to be in the film. Had he auditioned for 'maitre d' ' then no, but as it appears the character will be important, then it matters.ThuranX 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As we get closer to the time of release, that detail may be worth cutting, or moving to the actor's wikipage. For now though, whiel the section's still being built... ThuranX 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Casting

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=5968 It has a source and I think it could be in the development section. franshu190.30.135.126 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

Well, I know he stated that he hated wearing the Batsuit. But, he did sign on to do the sequel!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 08 July 2007 (UTC)
The headlines are here for possible use in the article, not for general commentary. I hope you understand; the talk page, per guidelines, is meant to be used to discuss improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

William Fichtner

Is his role as "Bank manager" important enough to be included in the cast list? Alientraveller 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why should any cast member be excluded because you think there role isn't important. For a film that isn't even finished shooting who are we to determine at this point his importance or non-importance. Even if his role in the end doesn't amount to much screen time he is a rather significant name and his presense should be acknowledged.annoynmous 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

His role does not strike me as important enough. We know that there is a bank robbery at the beginning of the film, but there's no indication that the bank manager will be a recurring character in the rest of the film. Fichtner is a recognized actor, certainly, but the impact of his role does not have any cinematic weight. On the opposite side, White as Gamble, being directly involved with the film's plot (in terms of filling Falcone's vacancy), is clearly more prominent and should be kept. If Fichtner turns out to have a prominent role -- and I don't believe we ever had major coverage for him besides independent mentions at BOF and an MTV blog -- we could include him. Until then, he has no apparent importance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Erik. That a known character actor takes a small role isn't particularly noteworthy. As Erik notes, we can always return his listing if needed. ThuranX 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think hwe should be mentioned. we DO NOT KNOW whether Gamble will be a prominent character or just a cameo, and we DO NOT know how important william fitchner will be in the film. Anyway, does anyone has a link to confirm he´ll be in the film? franshu201.253.85.74 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Fichtner is known only as the bank manager, his role is very likely to be minimal. On the other hand, this is the description for the character of Gamble: "Gamble is one of several mob bosses attempting to take over Gotham’s streets now that Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson in the first ‘Batman’ flick) is out of the picture. As “Dark Knight” opens, Batman and Jim Gordon must decide whether to focus their energy on aspiring thugs like Gamble, or the homicidal Joker (Heath Ledger), a costumed anarchist bank robber." There is definitely more prominence for the role of Gamble than Fichtner's character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the article, but he could just have a short scene. Something like the guy appearing in the news or something like that, something unimportant. At this moment, and until we have more details about the plot, we can´t decide who is important and who is not. franshu201.253.85.74 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gamble sounds like he has a notable part, similiar to Carmine Falcone, or maybe Scarecrow, in the way villains piled into each other. William Fichtner on the other hand, sounds like he has a part with only a little more screentime than the "nice jacket" tramp. Alientraveller 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. If you think that way, both "Jim Gordon´s son" and "Jim Gordon´s wife" should be removed from the article, considering they are such minor characters that they don´t even have a name. Franshu190.30.132.98 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say they're minor, being the family of an important character. But Fichtner doesn't sound like he'll be popping up throughout the film. Alientraveller 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I persoanlly don't see why Fichtner should not ne included at this point in production. First off sense filming has not yet finished there are probably numerous small roles that have been cast that we yet do not know about. At this point every official bit of casting should be reported.
Even if Fichtner ends up only being in the movie for 5 minutes, he is still a very well known character. It's obvious that Christopher Nolan intended his role to be somwhat significant by casting such a well known name. If the role truly was unimportant Nolan would have cast a lesser known name.
The result of this is that for a time on Fichtners page at wikipedia the fact that he had a role in movie wasn't mentioned. I had to go and restore the reference to him being in the movie. It seems that because he isn't mentioned in this article that the people over at his article assume he isn't in the movie. For this reason I feel his name should be restored to the article.
Also on a sidenote. it's time to delete the reference to David Banner palying Gamble. Since it has now been confirmed that Michael Jai White is playing Gamble there is no longer any need for this refernce. annoynmous 11:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic. Not every role is mentioned from a film in its Wikipedia article, just roles that had some part in it. Here, we don't know for sure the prominence of each role. For example, the mayor of Gotham City may only have a minor part, and we would likely remove the name in the long run. Right now, though, all the characters established are likely to be more relevant than the bank manager. The bank manager has no significance or relationship to any other characters, nor a prominent role in Gotham City.
In addition, WikiProject Films' style guidelines encourages casting information for the background of each character. David Banner was another person up for the role. If other people were attributably in consideration for other roles, we'd include them, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay so why are Melinda Mcgraw and Nathan Gamble listed in the cast list. How do you that James Gordon wife and son play a prominent role in this film? YOU DON'T!!!
Nobody nows anything about this film at this point. We don't know the storyline or which characters will be in it or not. Not to mention that filming hasn't even ended yet. I find it extremely irresponsible for an encyclopedia to make judgements on a project when so little information is known on it at this point.
As for Banner why should someone who might have been cast in role be in the cast list at the top of the article when we already know who actually got the part. If you want to put it somewhere else fine, but it shouldn't be at the top of the article. annoynmous 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? Fichtner is in the list, and the article is fine with the Banner information. Alientraveller 11:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine I am satisfied with the article as it is. I just want to say that to Alientraveller that I hope that you didn't take any of this personally. I realize that I can come off strong sometimes, but I just get angry when people automatically revert my edits and use intimidation to get me to stop. I didn't mean to be insulting and if I came off that way I'm sorry. You seem like a very reasonable person despite are present arguements and hope that we can be comrads in the future on wikipedia.
Again if I unitentionally offended anyone I sincerely apologize. annoynmous 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm indifferent to the inclusion of David Banner, and the role of Gordon's son and wife is probably more significant than a bank manager. In the end, I think Anthony Michael Hall, David Banner (which is already at the place I'm going to suggest), McGraw, Gamble, ...really, everyone below Morgan Freeman should be moved to the prose section below the cast. At the moment, we don't know the importance of any of those characters, not even Eric Roberts or Michael Jai White. They may not have anything but bit parts as far as we know. I'd much rather see them mentioned in prose, with an identifier that the importance of their roles has yet to be released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, but I would like to embrace Bignole's idea to rewrite cast members below Lucius Fox into prose. We can word it like, "To take place of Falcone's vacancy, Eric Roberts was cast as Sal Maroni,[1] and Michael Jai White as Gamble.[2]" With more detail, of course. We can also have a sentence for "supporting cast members" to include the Gordon family. Lastly, I still do not see any clearly attributable source that identifies William Fichtner as the bank manager in the film -- it's only limited to movie sites. Is there really a completely attributable source to recognize his role? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This solution sounds like the best way to handle things. ThuranX 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay it's shame that I have to make this point once more. William Fichtner is a cast memeber and at this stage of production he deserves to be mentioned no mattter how small his role may be. Unless Erik has somehow managed to come across the dark knight script, any judgment at this point on whether or not a character is important to the story seems highly dubious. The same argument could be made for Nester Carbonells role. How do we know whether or not the mayor is a significant role in the film. Erik has no right to erase a cast memeber because of his own uninformed opinion of who is or is not important to the plot.
It seems odd to me that erik is now suggesting that Fichtner really isn't in the film even though theres a link that mentions a blog entry by fichtner where he mentions filming the opening scene for a film in chicago. This was not Eriks original claim. He wasn't claiming that Fichtner wasn't in the film, just that he wasn't important. When this logic started to fall apart he then started claiming that fichtner wasn't in the movie.
I might also mention that fichtner is listed as a confirmed cast member on imdb. I know wikipedia has a thing about imdb, but in regards to the dark knight they have been very careful about confirming casting in the film. They have been careful to list certain people as rumored who haven't been officially confirmed. Fichtner has been off the rumored list for a while.
In conclusion I feel at this still early stage of production that Fichtner's casting should be left in the article. When the film finally comes out and it is shown who's important and who's not than I'd be fine with excluding certain cast memebers. However, at this point when so little of the plot is known every bit of official casting should be included. annoynmous 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a cite for Fichtner? Something really substantial? Alientraveller 10:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that he wasn't in the film. In all likelihood, he is. However, I have looked myself and have not found any verifiable sources about Fichtner's involvement. What I've found are fleeting mentions on movie sites, in comparison to other roles which have been mentioned in Variety, and the blog you're referring to is an NHL.com blog where the age of "William Fichtner" is shown as 17. Besides, if you went with what the blog said, it said that he filmed very, very briefly (even though the entry never specified The Dark Knight) which would indicate a very minor role. If you really cite the so-called blog, you should be very much aware that "Fichtner" has a ridiculously minor role. And IMDb is not attributable for future films. It lists Sam Raimi as the director for Spider-Man 4 even though Raimi has not decided a single thing about reprising his role. They have also listed false casting, such as Daniel Gillies (with no "rumored" tag) for Spider-Man 3, despite the fact he was never in it. We tried to come up with a solution where fairly minor roles still covered by major sources (Variety, MTV) were written in prose below the main cast of the film. As for Fichtner, there is no attribution by Wikipedia standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And this is the blog in question... age is marked as 17, and the purported comment, "I just got back from Chicago, because a director friend of mine asked a favor: to shoot the opening scene in his film, last minute. He called Saturday, and I told him, ‘you’re killing me,’ but it’s cool and I love working on cool things." Think of it this way, if this was undergoing the FAC process (ignoring that it's an unstable future film), would a source like this really stand up to the litmus test? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, the initial argument presented about the bank manager that it was common sense that his role would not be major. (If you relied on unverifiable filming news, the bank manager is in the opening scene of the film, and it's highly doubtful that the manager has a recurring role throughout the film -- "I want my money back, Batman, get it for me!" Heh.) Now, since that common sense didn't apply everywhere, policies were reflected in regard to the verifiability of the information. The other minor roles have been mentioned with Variety and MTV, so they have been noted in the public sphere. However, Fichtner has not. The two sources are BOF (and no, we wouldn't cite SHH or Latino Review's exclusive mention on similar casting, either) and a NHL.com blog. Other sources, which have been basically movie sites, have reported on these two. I've explained the fallacy of IMDb as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay I don't understand why I have fight so hard to keep the mention of a cast memeber on a page just because some editor arbitrally decided that Fichtner's role isn't important. You say it's obvious that Fichtner's role is small, once again I ask for your copy of The Dark Knight script that proves your point. You are basing your assumption on the importance of Fichtner's role on a film that has not finished filming yet and is still a year away from release. Almost none of the plot details are known at this time so to make judgements on who is important or not to the story is just plain irresponsible.
In regards to imdb, I haven't said that they don't make mistakes, just in reagards to the dark knight they have been extremely careful not to confirm cast memebers in this film until it is officially confirmed. When rumours of Alan Dale starring in the film circulated they listed it as rumour and not as fact. Same now for the rumours of Cillian Murphy reprising his role in the film, they listed itas rumour and not as fact. As I said Fichtner has been off rumoured for a while.
I would also like to reiterate a point I made before. If your serious about this policy of only mentioning cast memebers that you think are important to the story than I feel Nester Carbonell should be deleted as well. Are seriously going to tell me that the mayor has a big role in the film.
I would also like to like to state that Fichtner is rather well known character actor and that his presense in the film should be acknowledged. If some big movie star like Tom Cruise had a small role in the film would you erase that as well. Granted I'll admit Fichtner is anywher near as big as Cruise, but he is a relatiely recognizable face. For crying out loud he was the main character on Invasion which ran on ABC, and he's now a major character on Prison Break so you can't argue he's unkown.
Now I'll turn to the issue of whether or not Fichtner actually is in the film. It seems odd to me that no one has directly said that they think the reports of Fichtner being in the film are false. Even Erik has ackowledged that Fichtner most likely is in the film. It seems to me that the NHL Blog and the listing on imdb provide a enough circumstantial evidence that he is in the film. It would seem to me that if the report that he's in the film were false that Fichtner would have corrected it by now. If Erik truly want's to argue that he thinks Fichtner isn't in the film than fine, but don't make some absurd argument about his character not being important to the story and when that logic falls apart use another argument just you can get your way on the article.
Does Fichtner being listed on this article really bother you that much. As a compromise I propose just leaving Fichtner until a time when we get closer to the release of the film and the official cast and the specific story details become more solid. I was under the delusion that I had already come to such an agreement with alientraveller, but I guess now I need a simlar agreement with Erik. annoynmous 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Only one thing needs to be said. Find a verifiable reliable source. If you cannot do that then stop adding the name. BOF doesn't have his name listed, at least not on the page you have linked. I searched his name. It is not my responsibility, or any other editor's, to scour a website for some obscure mention of a person's name. This is one of the reasons we do not cite BOF.com, because they don't have actual pages, but a running scroll that gets automatically archived after a certain amount of information is presented.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This is rapidly approaching tendentious editing. Fitchner's own blog admits it was a fast shoot, and a favor. That suggests it's a small role, but one that might've needed someone who can actually act, like a bnak manager, needing to sell terrified and scared and so on. He was back the next night or something. One or two days on set means a small role, one scene in the film. Until you can demonstrate for us that there is significant 'meat' to this role, consensus is clearly against including him. All we're asking for is a reliable citation that his role is notable. Find that, and it's in. Multipel editors have stated this to you, and all you do is tell us we're wrong, without showing us evidence that you're right. Please do it, we welcome such evidence. ThuranX 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reiteration

Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. I've asked you to imagine that if this article underwent the FAC process, would BOF.com or the NHL.com blog really stand up to criteria? Exclusive scooper reports by movie sites (including SHH and Latino Review) are not reliable, and blogs are generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Lastly, IMDb is user-submitted, so it should not be used as a reference for upcoming films. For all that's known, Fichtner was user-submitted by someone who saw the BOF.com mention or NHL.com blog, or one of the minor movie sites that have reported one of these. The fact that the addition's references could be questioned by any incoming editor with a FAC-level critical eye makes Fichtner unclear to mention. I've told you that I've tried to look for an attributable source that mentions Fichtner to end this matter, but there's none that I could find, as much as I wish I could find one. I say Fichtner is "likely" to be in the film, but to be honest, I'm not 100% convinced due to the lack of independent coverage. In addition, the argument is that if you believe the NHL.com blog, and I certainly take it with a grain of salt, it clearly reflects that Fichtner filmed very briefly with a film in Chicago (and I don't believe he ever explicitly said it was a Batman movie). So in your shoes, that weakens your argument for presentation, even though the source does not qualify to other editors as verifiable.

Lastly, all the other roles are clearly verifiable via Variety or MTV. It's a subjective argument to determine the notability of one's role, you're right, but most editors had assumed that "bank manager" was evidently not going to be a major role (disregarding verifiability issues). However, where people like those for the mayor, the mob bosses, and family members have been openly verifiable, Fichtner has not. So this is ultimately a verifiability issue, since someone thinks that a bank manager could be important, until the film comes out and we know who is worth including. We would likely exclude listing Gordon's wife and son if they have the same presence as Sandman's wife and daughter did in Spider-Man 3. These are decisions to make later. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a single, verifiable source (and you can't throw together multiple sources' circumstantial evidence to make it evident all of a sudden, that's synthesis.) Two other editors have voiced similar perspectives about sourcing Fichtner, and I don't believe there's any to be found for the time being (considering my search powers to be pretty decent), so there's nothing to absolutely, without-a-doubt list Fichtner in the article based on Wikipedia standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now your claiming that Fichtner might not be in the film. If you seriously believe that, than make that your argument. However, that was not your original point. You claimed that Fichtners part was not important enough to include. Everyone here uses words like "It's obvious" and "Seems to suggest", that doesn't sound like proof to me just conjecture. A point I have constantly made is that sense the film is still in a relatively early stage of production that every bit of casting should be reported. I'm sure that there are lots of people who ave been cast in the film that we don't yet know about and my point was that for now we should report every bit casting for every role no matter how small it may end up being. When the full cast list becomes more apparent and the specific story details become more specific, then we can start making decisions about who is or is not important to the story.
Also, Bignole and Thuran X, you speak of a consensus against me. Well, I thought I had a deal with alientraveller several weeks ago, but then Erik decided that was unaccepatable. Sense the arguemnt was origianlly between me an alientraveller I don't understand why you guys decided to invalidate our compromise.
Also, what is the nonsense about not being to go back in the history of the page and look up the reference. My God it's not that hard, the date it was posted is right next to the reference.
Here is what I would like as a compromise, how about we post that fichtner is rumored to have a small part in the film instead of it being a certain thing. Then when the movie is finished shooting in september or october, if you guys still feel the way you do than I won't object to erasing his name. How about that as a compromise. annoynmous 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
First, let's make something clear. Making "deals" with someone doesn't have anything to do with consensus. Second, it is not our responsibility to have to go through a website's history to find your information. If it isn't on the page you linked, then why did you link to that page? You can't just link pages all willy nilly and expect us to go find the right page. Now let's move on to what BOF has said: I told y’all that William Fichtner was in TDK as a “Bank Manager,” right? Well, here’s a bit from his NHL BLOG: -- Yeah, that's citable. Then we move on the an NHL blog they cited. It's a website where the person being cited claims to be 17. Last I checked, William wasn't 17, and I don't know why he would claim to be that. Anyway, the passage that BOF is quoting says: So I’m really looking forward to this one tonight especially because I didn’t see the last game. Now before you start to wonder if I’m a true fan or not, I have to say it was a last-minute thing. In fact I just got back from Chicago, because a director friend of mine asked a favor: to shoot the opening scene in his film, last minute. He called Saturday, and I told him, “you’re killing me,” but it’s cool and I love working on cool things. I got home at like two in the morning, I’ve had my nose to the grindstone, it was actually first time I ever used the internet on my handheld, when I was checking scores to stay up-to-date. I’m really looking forward to tonight. ---Sorry, but I don't see any mention of The Dark Knight in that little bit of information. This is why it does not meet verifiability and reliability. Sorry, it doesn't matter how right BOF is, the fact remains that neither source meets the policy and guidelines set forth for the inclusion of information. At least 3 people disagree with you, and I don't know Alien's current stand on this as of late. There is not amount of word play you can write up that will make this ok, with these two sources. Sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
100% in agreement with Erik and Bignole. There is simply no independent source which can even say ' I was an extra for the bank robbery, and I saw Fichtner there.' I'm beginning to think Annoy is like, Fichtner's press agent. This is into Tendentious editing now. We've made case after case against it, and generally, Annoy's rebuttals are 'well, you didn't say that before' or ' well, what about A?' "well a is bad for xyz." 'Then B!' "No, no B either, see fgh!" 'well, Iv'e got this thing here ... A!' We aren't going to chase our tails anymore for you. there are multiple reasons not to include him: The citation's a phantom - more than one movie may be filming there, Fichtner doesn't give a title, NO ONE of meritable citation has claimed him in ANY production, BOF.com cites Fichtner's blog, back to Fichtner doesn't give a title; EVEN if he's there, a one or two day shoot as an unnamed character 'bank manager' shows the role to be small. Insignificant? maybe not, but no citation to prove it is significant either. With no citation that he's in it, or that he matters in it, there's nothing to report. Please move on and try to fin other parts of the article to help with, or just move on.ThuranX 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
My God Are you guys really so lazy that you can't go back to the april to find the mention of fichtner. To say I have no proof is disengenious. I have circumstantial evidence and Fichtner mentioning filming in Chicago. If you can name me another big movie thats been shooting in Chicago recently I'd like to know what it is.
I point out once again that this argument of Fichtner possibly not being in the film is fairly recent. The intial argument by both alientraveller and Erik was that Fichtners character wasn't that important to the story which I argued was absurd sense so little of the actual story is known at this point. They both seemed to have accepted that Fichtner was in the film. I had come to a compromise with alientraveller that I thought was adequate. Then you guys came in and decided to come up with this new argument that Fichtner wasn't in the film at all.
I will point out once again that Fichtner is listed on IMDB as a confirmed cast memeber. IMDB in recent months has been very careful to list cast memebers there not sure about as "Rumored" or "In Talks". Wikipedia is not so innocent in this area. For months they carried the completely baseless rumour that Zachary Quinto was in Live Free and Die Hard. Also in regards to issue of Sam Raimi being listed on IMDB as directing Spiderman 4, he is listed as "In Talks" not confirmed.
I will once again state my plea for a compromise. Fichtner will remain on the site as a rumored cast memeber, as I feel there is enough circumstantial evidence to confirm him being in the film. If when The Dark Knight stops filming and you guys still feel the way you do than feel free to delete fichtners name. I won't object at that time, but for next few months I want his name to remain. I would like to hope that we can find some mutual ground here. annoynmous 07:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I quoted BOF? The only other mention of him on BOF is when they say "Fichter will be in TDK as a bank manager". That doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS either, because it's one of those "I heard from an insider" kind of announcements, which we cannot use. Fichtner saying he's working in Chicago, and you drawing the conclusion that it's for TDK (regardless of whether it is or not) is considered original research, because he didn't say exactly what he was doing. Now I'll point out that Erik and Alien were saying that even if he was in the film, no one knows his involvement anyway. Right now, we at least know that these other people are in the film because we have verifiable, reliable sources saying so. We do not have one for Fichtner. Last, Wikipedia is not a rumormill. This is an encyclopedia, not a scoopter site. Also, do not make demands as you are doing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is that circumstantial evidence would be synthesis (if you read the definition), a violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. We are not "lazy" to look up the page history -- every mention of Fichtner in relation to the Batman film on the minor movie sites go back to BOF.com and the NHL.com blog. I have personally gone out of my way to look for newspaper headlines that mention Fichtner so we can end this debacle, but there is nothing to be found. The previous argument about the notability of Fichtner's role was a light argument, because we did not look as closely as the verifiability of the information as we should have. That's why the discussion started off as a subjective one about the notability of the role, but your resistance led the discussion to boil down to actual application of Wikipedia's policies to that information. Also, it can't be said that IMDb is "doing better" now, based on your own personal study of how that page has updated new casting information as opposed to previous pages about future films. Lastly, marking him as "rumored" doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. If The New York Times specifically mentioned that an actor was rumored or reported for a role in a film, that could be reported. However, Fichtner's involvement has not been covered in any aspect that I could find, and I've used both Google News and Access World News to find any relevant headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm beginning to realize that no matter what I say that nothing is going to get through. I hearby offer another compromise. I will cease trying to get Fichter mentioned on this article, but I want it mentioned on the article dealing with Fichtner. I think if it should be mentioned anywhere it should be on his page.
Oh! and Erik I'm sorry but your argument of Fichtners importance to the story was not a "Light argumment". That is a lame after the fact argument your now using to get your way on the article. When I voiced a complaint you changed your argument being that your original arument was so pantly absurd.
Oh and this business of wikipedia's standards, besides the Zachary Quinto example I gave earlier I notice that you guys kept up the rumor that David Banner was considered.
Anyway, I've decided I spent to much energy on this episode and I don't understand why I had to fight so hard to keep the mention of cast memeber on this page. Despite what you all say I think you all beleive that Fichtner is in the movie, you just want to get your way on the article.
Anyway I will continue to fight for the mention of casting on Fichtners page. Goodbye to all this typical wikipedia nonsense and alientraveller, bless you sense you were the only one willing to compromise and come to some mutual ground. annoynmous 09:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! and one more thing. If IMDB is such an unreliable source why do you guys post it on every freaking article dealing with Movies. annoynmous 10:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's available solely as an external link, rather than as a direct reference, across film articles. This is acceptable under WP:EL guidelines, but in my opinion, IMDb is still a poor external link when it comes to the fuzzy nature of future films. Please read a proposal under discussion at WP:CIMDB, too. I'm sorry you thought that our switch of arguments was invalid -- we were willing to overlook notability issues and include Fichtner, until we found out that there were no references that met verifiability or reliability standards. I personally think that Alientraveller just agreed with you for the same reason, but I could be wrong. Anyway, William Fichtner should not have the role mentioned on his article, and I would encourage you to exclude mention of The Dark Knight until there is a verifiable source. However, the editors here are interested in keeping The Dark Knight at a FAC-level, not the article on Fichtner, so I will not be pursuing this inane matter there. However, if the situation arises that people will be adding Fichtner here based on the item in his article (e.g., quoting Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia), the matter will have to be revisited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I just want some mention of him being in the film on wikipedia. It seems both you and Alientraveller were accepting Fichtner being in the movie and then you mysteriously changed your argument when I objected to your first argument. I personally think this claim that you suddenly discovered that Fichtner may not be in the film is BS, I think your just saying that now to get your way on the article.
It also seems odd to me that you claim wikipedia is not about printing rumors when the only source for the caim that David Banner was considered for the film was an article from MTV.com. I don't understand why similar citiation for fichtner wouldn't sufice.
However, I'm willing to compromsie at this point and as long as the citation stays on Fichtners page I will cease trying to post it on this article. At least until the full official cast is confirmed. annoynmous 03:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing reliable was printed about Fichtner. Show me a reliable source that says the film he was working on was The Dark Knight. That was what we are looking for. BOF.com doesn't say how they know it is TDK, thus it isn't reliable. Hearing from an insider isn't reliable, and the NHL blog doesn't state what the film is called.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Joker's Picture

Now that it's been proved that the ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com site is official, and we know without a doubt that the picture of Heath Ledger as the Joker is definitely real, is there anything to prevent us from adding said picture to the article? ~Griggs~ 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use guidelines. There isn't a place for it at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. The unfortunate fact is that there is no attributable coverage about the Joker's look beyond identification purposes, and WP:FU requires more than that -- critical commentary, to be specific. That's why we have a picture of the Batpod; it visually shows the details that are explained in the neighboring paragraph. The Joker picture would not fit anywhere at the moment, though I'm sure when we uncover more about the Joker's design and make-up, we can include the image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the information. ~Griggs~ 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically the image of the joker could have a place in the article. if you relate the joker in the series and the first movie to the joker now. explaining how the joker in the series and first movie were made to look fun and colorful and idiotic. Too much like clowns, when in reality if u look back into the comics, the joker was a dark gothic looking criminal. He didnt look as much like a clown as the series and the movie made him look. so there is yur article that can incorporate the image of Ledger as the Joker because the Ledger Joker looks alot more like the comic joker....dark, gothic and truley looks evil. It would fit in great in the following paragraph....

"Before the release of Batman Begins, screenwriter David S. Goyer wrote a treatment for two sequels, introducing the Joker and Harvey Dent, in which the former scars the latter during his trial in a third film.[23] On July 31, 2006, Warner Bros. Pictures officially announced the initiation of production for the sequel, titled The Dark Knight.[11] The Nolan brothers took turns each month to revise the screenplay.[24][25] The Dark Knight's interpretation of the Joker is primarily based on the character's first two appearances in the Batman comics, as well as Alan Moore's one-shot comic book Batman: The Killing Joke,[26] which was given to Heath Ledger in order to prepare for his role.[27] Jerry Robinson, one of the co-creators of the basic concept for the Joker in the comics, is involved as a consultant on the portrayal of the character.[28] The Nolan brothers were highly secretive, and Christopher Nolan refused to let Ledger leave his house with a copy of the script.[29]"

the explanation of how the joker went from goofy lookin clown to the dark gothic comic villian would fit nicely at the end of the paragraph as it has already started talkin about the origins for the design of the Ledger Joker (see bold text above)....and there you have the spot for the picture...describing the differences between the jokers....make it a comparison picture....show Jack Nicholson joker next to Ledger Joker explaining the differences and how Ledger follows the comic.... This will not only explain and evaluate the differences between the two but it will also incorporate that amazing picture of Ledger as the Joker. -Double D-

All of that would be interesting, but would require vast quantities of citation showing both the intent of the initial designers to get a certain look, and then of the later designers to deliberately vary in certain ways, otherwise it would all be original research. If you can put that together, with references, please bring it here ot the talk so others an review it, and then we could put it out there, rather than risk some edit warring. ThuranX 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ill definately see what i can find. ill do some research...get some documentation...and ill get back at yas. -Double D-

Sounds good. And please register, so that we can communicate with you directly, on your user talk page. Thank you. ThuranX 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Teaser + Simpsons

Is it true the teaser is gonna run in front of the simpsons movie?BlueShrek 03:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

go do some research. Wikipedia isn't a rumor confirmation center. ThuranX 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It´s true according to one of su`perherohype´s "most reliable sources". Now I wonder... is this reliable???: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6010 Check it out and answer my question. If it´s true anyway, we´ll know it is in a couple of weeks...FRanshu190.137.23.30 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not reliable. If it's true, like you said, we'll know in a couple weeks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I think it's reliable.

Hey I wrote something yesterday and I saw the same thing. Don't erase this cause I think it's reliable too. Go check Canmag . com or Comicbookmovie . com homepages.

It isn't reliable because what they say is that they've heard it will be released with The Simpsons. What it also mentioned was that it might be a limited release of the trailer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It did NOT run in front of The Simpsons Movie in Canada, not too sure about USA 24.76.118.132 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's wife and son.

I've been putting his wife and son's name in there part in the cast part, Barbara Gordon and James Gordon Jr., and somebody keeps erasing them. These are their names in the comics, can't we just put them there until we learn something new?

No, because this isn't a comic page, it's a film page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a comic book film page, and those are their names in the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.140 (talk • contribs)
It could always be changed. They're always rewriting the comics too. Alientraveller 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There are people cast for the roles, inclusion of them is reccomended 24.76.118.132 20:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The source does not mention their names. Alientraveller 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall's role

Check this out. Could we use this in the article? http://comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/3742.asp I don't think it's true and I hate the Riddeler but has anyone else heard of this news? Personally I don't think it's true but who knows. We might be able to mention something about this rumor. Correct? ManofSTEEL2772

Not verifiable. Alientraveller 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You answered fast. Okay, thanks. But do you think it's true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.16.47 (talk • contribs)

I don't care until the studio announces it. Alientraveller 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no official confirmation that Mr. Hall will be the Riddler. Confirmation via insider reports do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. In a similar situation, at Iron Man, many anonymous editors changed Shaun Toub to be The Mandarin, though ultimately, he was portraying Yin Sen. That's what jumping the gun will get you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Erik, and a 'scoop' that uses except instead of expect and doesn't proof-read? not worth much salt. (And my vote's for him to be Jeremiah Arkham anyway.) ThuranX 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dark Knight Teaser Trailer is attached to the Harry Potter movie ?

[1] Youtube page ! Fake?--Brown Shoes22 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hummm.... it´s difficult to say... but I guess it´s fake. franshu190.31.46.17 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is real, it's a copyright violation. Alientraveller 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been seeing that linked around for a couple weeks. If it's real, copyvio, not citable, if it's fake, it's interesting, but ... weak. ThuranX 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, did not happen. 24.76.118.132 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting

The Joker, the batmobile, etc., here: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=F83DDCC8F382BB7FC5D8D6744B81CF5C?contentId=3789512&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1 Plus, the article gives some info about where they´re currently filming.

Who filmed that. Maybe we could add something about it in the article. ManofSTEEL2772

All images seem to be removed, and tht leaves a summary of what we already know, and a 'holy guacamole' that I'm sure FOX's usual mouth-breathing audience thinks is incredibly clever and nouveau. Also, Man of Steel, please register an account here. Accounts make it much easier to reply to you. Thank you. ThuranX 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the discussion on topic and not use it as an opportunity to throw out blanket insults. Thanks. Mcflytrap 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What blanket insults? Alientraveller 11:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thuran's comment about "Fox's usual mouth-breathing audience". Lots of love and tolerance. Mcflytrap 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, that's funny. Alientraveller 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's only funny if your brain is the size of a walnut. Mcflytrap 08:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. I might not get a user page up for a while but I'll register.

When you do register, I'll look for it, and hopefully stop by to welcome you. Don't worry about User pages, there are three major benefits that come with registering. One, You can maintain a 'watchlist', allowing you to find your favorite articles, and monitor their growth. Two, Others can see your contrib list, making it easy to help you out, or correct a series of mistakes you might make for you. Third, and best, you'll have a talk page, where other editors can reach you, and critique (not criticize) yoru edits, and work to collaborate on a page to improve it. ThuranX 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

sounds cool. ManofSTEEL2772

Rory's First Kiss

Why is the production and everything calling the movie Rory's first Kiss. It's not like it's a secret. So should this really be in the article or not? ManofSTEEL2772 (yes I'm still trying to get registered)

because when movies film, they often use a false name to throw people of the scent. this time, the code was cracked, but really, 90% of chicago doesn't know the code name, so it still gives some privacy... as for registering, jsut click the register like at the top of the page, upper right hand corner. ThuranX 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

understand thanks!

We should include mention of Rory's First Kiss with this article from The Guardian. It's reliable and better than the movie sites that first purported claims of the title being a cover. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. ThuranX 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Background in Cast

I've been thinking lately that despite the structure of Cast sections in articles like Spider-Man 3, a more appropriate structure would be actual inclusion of real-world context behind each character in the film, beyond who played that role. It seems that the actor/role/brief char. description is commonplace with articles of franchise films like Star Wars, superhero films, et cetera. I want to suggest going in the direction of providing more critical commentary about the background of each role, especially when most actors are usually inquired about their roles in today's media. I've been taking this approach with Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters (though the section headings could be improved) as to reflect stronger real-world context behind each character. I mentioned this a while ago when I noticed missing information about how Eckhart would be approaching the role, and I'd like to revisit it here. It would warrant shuffling of the content, and it would make placement easier in some places, since if there is a one-sentence detail about a character, it won't have to be forced into a paragraph, but instead rest fittingly in the bulleted entry. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great way to approach it, and I'd like to see that tried. Throw it up there, let's see if it sticks, I'd certainly support it, though I'm not sure it should be in the 'Cast' listing. Perhaps under filming, a subheading "Portrayals". that has a catchy title, and isn't used much. I think it would properly refer to the section as referrig to the act of acting(sorry). Anyways, I'd like to see such a section, if not in place of the list itself. Seems to me there was an interview with bale about how batmans wasn't brand new, but still fairly new.. that might help. I can't remember where I read it though. ThuranX 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Teaser Description

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6040 is this valid and could we use it somewhere or not? ManofSTEEL2772

It doesn't appear verifiable. A scooper sent it into SHH, and the site says, "...what looks to be a legit description." Besides, it's junk information to describe trailers scene-by-scene. If this information is true, I'm sure a teaser will become available (perhaps at Comic-Con) to link to at this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

okay, cool. ManofSTEEL2772

Batsuit over Batcycle

Does anyone think it would be better to have the Batsuit over the Batcycle in the article? There seems to be enough information about the Batsuit to warrant the image, and it seems more important to show the new Batsuit than what he rides for now. Later, with more content, we can have both. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have more information on the Batcycle now though, and the picture of the new costume isn't good anyway: I would wait for something full-frontal like the picture in the Batman Begins article. No pun intended by the way. Alientraveller 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It may be better to wait for a frontal view in better lighting. The current one is a side-angle shot, at night. It get a good idea of all the changes you have to have a high-res image to see all the new details, which we can't have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Works for me; just thought I'd ask, due to the attempted addition of the Batsuit image by the GIPU. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd with the crowd. baa baa... but it's a great suit shot for promo purposes. I made it into a wallpaper, LOL. and i'm also glad we talked this through back here, to have a sense of consensus to point to for GIPUs and curious editors. ThuranX 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My vote is with the suit since more people would be alot more inclined to find out or want to see info on the batsuit as opposed to his ride 65.123.157.253 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

While guessing about what readers are more interested in is pointless, reasons for it would be more valuable. I think that since there's more interesting information about the construction and uses of the ride than the suit, Accompanying the section with the cycle makes more sense. The suit's a modified item, the machine is new. ThuranX 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whysoserious.com

Heads up, guys... http://www.whysoserious.com/ looks like another possible viral marketing website. WHOIS doesn't clearly show the site as part of Warner Bros., so it looks like we're in for another barrage of unverifiable edits. To initiate the consensus, I don't believe it's appropriate to include this site in the article without official confirmation that it belongs to the studio. Anyone can can create such a site. Let's keep an eye out for what is reported. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This why so serious.com thing is sparked by Legal dollar bills probably ranging up in the 100s if not 1000's found all over comic con 2007. Covered in a light film covering that have the jokers new defacing smile and eyes that will actually if you remove the film is legal tender--GasSnake or Poison Oak 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We need verifiable reliable sources confirming not only the website, but that the dollar bills are part of Warner Brothers' marketing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they won't confirm it until after 10 am tomorrow which be to late come on you know this at least put it a possible but unofficial marketing section under marketing section-GasSnake or Poison Oak 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The site does not comply with Wikipedia's verifiability or reliable source policies, so it does not belong in the article until there is official confirmation for it. We've seen plenty of fake images pass through here; no reason why this couldn't be a fake site, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the show one of the Most reliable sources of information and the only people doing pretty much up to the minute live coverage cited it holding up an actual one and if your actually there at comic con finding these "joker" dollars I think I'll trust my media over your policy at the moment--GasSnake or Poison Oak 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the show is not verifiable, and not reliable. They are a scooper show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine that you prefer your media, as long as we include the media coverage when it becomes attributable. Wikipedia does not need to be up-to-date. It's the tortoise of the race. Slow and steady article development in line with policies, not an onslaught of news tidbits that are unverifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's right for you to call it a "scooper show" without any proof to back that up anyway G4 gose slow to because they update ever time someting changes with the feed ticker that appers below each show from time to time and have feed updates by usually Ms. Kelyie(might have mispelled it)--GasSnake or Poison Oak 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how the coordinates lead to san diego and the time is a count down to the wb panel at comic con i think we can rest assured just like dent and denttoo that it is in fact legit. and attack of the show has yet to report something false so i dont see how there unreliable seeing as how they reported denttoo belonging to wb and it was a certain person was the only one saying it wasnt.65.123.157.253 01:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Studying the site's content does not ensure its verifiability. Also, even if Attack of the Show reported it, there needs to be a static reliable source which can be checked by any editor in the future. You can't cite something that was just shown on TV; later visitors can't verify that for themselves. When the site is confirmed as coming from the studio in a static reliable source, we will include it. We went through this same situation with the Harvey Dent sites, and a magazine confirmed that the site was part of the marketing campaign. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But unlike Harvey dent unless your at CC when it happens you can't confirm it more then you trying to prove god exist to a hard core atheist scientist even thought they have more proof of the big bang and I think attack of the show would ask Comic con officials about it before reporting it. Thank you 65.123.157.253 anyway ....that proves it if it points to San Diego something big like a teaser trailer is going to happen or they might do a city wide thing--GasSnake or Poison Oak 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not speculate here... per talk page guidelines, the talk page is not a forum for general discussion. IMDb would be a better place to have that discussion. Here, we'll just have to sit tight until something verifiable comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That website was explicitly stated to be connected to this film During Comic-con coverage on G4TV, You guys need to wake up and smell the laughing gas.75.132.212.108 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean joker gas anyway--GasSnake or Poison Oak 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the facts we do know erik are that the coordinates are san diego and that its a count down to the panel that much is verified. and due to the similarities its only a matter of time before its verified mark my words lol 65.123.157.253 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We can wait. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
it's going to be rather unimportant to the people who might have been able to make it out if it is confirmed especially if the sites ripped down like I believe in Harvey Dent too viral and leave a cryptic message like last time--GasSnake or Poison Oak 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So this "employed by the Joker" thing is only for people who are 18 and over and in San Diego at Comic Con? I'm just trying to understand the article better. One Fried Egg 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows except for what that site (whether it's official or not) says. That's why there's the argument that it does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So do you think there might be more info before the end of today after they give their presentation or whatever at Comic Con? One Fried Egg 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the site is part of a campaign, then I'm sure that there will be coverage from reliable sources about the site and whatever the countdown means. We'll include that information as soon as it's available and verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The site IS legit, Erik. I'm glad it's been posted on the page. The HD trailers all went up this afternoon after a long delay. There was also a new photo showing Ledger as the Joker holding Rachel Dawes up by knife-point. That photo has since been taken down. Anyhow, the site is legit. Time to mention it on the page. TabascoMan77 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning it on the page isn't going to happen without a reliable source covering it. Why? Original research. If you start interpreting the site, and explaining things on it, with no reliable source to back you up, then it's OR. You cannot explain the treasure hunt, because there would be no way to verify it took place. Wiki isn't a how-to guide, so you can't post passwords and the lot so that people can play the game themselves. We need reliable coverage of the event. Someone will talk about it eventually. This isn't a scooper site; we don't have to be update by the minute.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, BigNole: THE SITE IS LEGIT. I don't know if you've checked recently, but three HD-quality versions of the official teaser trailer (which I, myself, saw at The Simpsons Movie) are now up for view on the site. On top of that, there WAS a picture of Ledger and Gyllenhall on the site that Superhero Hype now has on their site. I'm not asking to report passwords and the like, I'm saying that there needs to be a mention that the games took place...because they did. I wasn't born yesterday. I'm a pretty reliable guy and am not looking to pull a fast one. The entire re-write about the BMWFilms "The Hire" page on Wikipedia is all due to me. I would think I have a tiny bit of clout. Tabascoman77 17:27 (PST), 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And I repeat, reporting on the website is original research. Please read that policy. Per the policy, any OR can and should be removed on the spot. The website itself should be fine for the EL section, but it is not, and "I repeat", it is NOT ok to write up your own observations into the article. Find news coverage (reliable) that reports on the game itself. Do not report on it yourself, as it will be removed each and every time. You can reliable all you want in your own eyes, but you do not pass Wikipedia's criteria for such (read the link above).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So its not OK to write up fact? Fact that the trailer was released, that it is legit, that WB confirmed it legit? That Gyllenhaal and Ledger apparently aren't in the film yet they are? That WB never had a panel at comic con and that the SImpsons Movie didn't have the trailer in front of it? Your reasonings are very stubborn and very unbeleivable. 24.76.118.132 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources. We need them to verify information. We cannot take the word of editors. We now have a source for the teaser appearing with The Simpsons. The marketing website is in the external links section. Unless there is coverage about the website, the only info that will be included is the link to the page. We don't describe trailers, and we don't describe websites. Peole can click a link for that themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)


Bignole why are you being such a bunghole man it has the offical WB seal that the bottom it's been confirmed legit at the DC panel and what do you want ledger to approach you and to say it's real? it has it on the site just check it--GasSnake or Poison Oak 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep your incivility and personal attacks to yourself please. Also, you'd do kindly to actually read the marketing section, as the website and the teaser trailer are mentioned there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At the Comic Con, today, they released the official teaser trailer (which can be seen at http://www.whysoserious.com) and also a 1-800 phone number to be used to build hype around the movie. The 1-800 number is...1-800-395-9646, check it out if you like...the number should probably be left out cause it might be the work of anyone, however it did come from the Comic Con in San Diego, about The Dark Knight exhibit.

Unfortunately, we cannot take the word of any passerby that went. We need published, reliable coverage to include any information in the article. And we already have that website linked and mentioned in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19
19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First hand accounts of an event are reliable. I would like to see more iformation on the scavenger hunt/ alternate reality game that took place at comic-con. At the very least, the passwords used in the various check points on the why so serious website should be mentioned in tne marketing section of this article! thanks ~~theHand~~

No they aren't. Please read reliable souces to find out what is reliable. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, we aren't here to show people how to do things. Find a reliable souce that discusses the scavenger hunt, plain and simple.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)


http://www.podcasts.cinematical.com/2007/07/27/the-dark-knight-teaser-trailer-hits-with-new-joker-photo/ This link talks about the trialer and the phone number that was released at the 2007 Comic Con in San Diego --Huper Phuff talk 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

Variety has confirmed it's a warner bros site http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117969414.html?categoryId=13&cs=1 71.107.96.117 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Coverage from Comic Book Resources here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Joker knife picture

There is currently an image circulating on the internet of Heath Ledger in Joker makeup holding Maggie Gyllenhaal(sp) at knifepoint, apperently originating from whysoserious.com. is there any way to determine its legitimacy, and if legitimate, would anyone be willing to post it in this article? 74.74.87.8 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as we know, it's all legit. If it's in this article then it won't be for awhile. We have to justify the use of all copyrighted images, otherwise they will be removed immediately. To justify an image we have to actually talk about it in the article, and to do that we need reliable sources commenting on it (like maybe comparing Ledger's Joker to Nichelson's Joker....which is hard to do because it's a side angle shot).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You can see/find the picture here...if it will help to prove its legitimacy...
http://www.podcasts.cinematical.com/2007/07/27/the-dark-knight-teaser-trailer-hits-with-new-joker-photo/
--Huper Phuff talk 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
BigNole, the Joker pic is legit. There are already a few sites reporting it and they got it from the "Anticipation" site. It was released when you figured out the online "scavenger hunt". The trailer was also the reward. The use of the image would fall under "fair use" because it's being used to educate. Therefore, the pic should be posted ASAP. Tabascoman77 10:24 (PST), 29 July, 2007
There is no critical commentary provided by the image. Move along. Alientraveller 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is. It shows two actors in the movie, therefore showing readers a scene from the movie, in reference. Tabascoman77 13:41, 29 July 2007

Ok people, was it me, or did I not say "it's all legit"? R-E-A-D what I wrote, all of it. The picture appears, for all intents and purposes, to be perfectly legit. BUT, we cannot include it because of copyright laws. There needs to be reason to include it beyond eye candy. Also, please read WP:FURG for an understanding of what is and what is not fair use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright laws? It was released by Warner and every website and their mother is using it. Don't dictate "Fair Use" to me. I know what it is. I've studied it (I'm an editor). The resolution is NOT movie-quality (the Joker scenes were shot in IMAX format), it's a photo taken on-set by photographers, meaning it wasn't taken with a moving picture camera and it has already been published on the net by Warner Bros. for the purpose of informing the press and has already been used by the press to report on the subject of the movie. It is being used, within the article, to illustrate the actors hired to star in the movie, as a source of visual ID. Any more arguments? Tabascoman77 13:54, 29 July 2007
But the fair use guidelines of Wikipedia show fair use is only truly necessary for critical commentary. Alientraveller 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Warner did not release it into the public domain. They released on it on their own website. Obviously you have not studied FAIR USE criteria, that or you don't understand it. Warner Brothers did not put a notice up saying "All images are released to the public", THUS, it falls under their copyright. Here's a example. Just because a band releases an album, doesn't mean you can copy it legally and distribute it to others. People do this, but it's done illegally. If you think otherwise, please feel free to go over to the fair use talk page and ask if the image would be acceptable, and link to the page. We already have 3 non-free images on this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
First, Alien, the image DOES NOT have to display "critical commentary". There is no part of the WP:FURG page where it states that one of the requirements of the posting of an image is the need to provide any sort of commentary, except to provide a better understanding of the subject at hand. In this case, the photo would illustrate the acting portion of the movie. Wikipedia is not in the business of reporting the news, therefore, "critical commentary" is both unnecessary and unwise, considering that "critical commentary" would be providing a biased POV.
Secondly...Nole...I'm getting tired of your constant stone-walling. WB DID release the photo to the public. It's called a "PUBLICITY STILL". Haven't you heard of those? The photo of the Nolans filming the Joker is one as is the BatPod and Bale on top of the police car in the Bat-suit.
I haven't STUDIED FAIR USE CRITERIA?!? If by "not studying" you mean I haven't studied "Fair Use Copyright Under Wikipedia According to BigNole", then your correct. Here's a suggestion: don't tell me what I have and have not studied or speculate on my understanding of the subject. An image, when degraded from its original resolution, CAN, IN FACT, be used in an article as long as it is used for informative purposes. This not ONLY falls under the WP:FURG standards, but also under one the ten rules of Wikipedia:Non-free_content. The largest of these rules is the fact that the photo has been published on several other movie news websites as well as IMDB.
Lastly, your analogy (comparing the illegal copying of a musician's complete works to the posting of a photograph for informative purposes in an article) is terrible. By posting the photo, Wikipedia is HARDLY promoting the illegal distribution of an author's work. You should know this by now...or maybe you don't. I mean, for somebody who has been with Wikipedia for two years, you seem largely uninformed or, at the very least, confused on the legality of the use of materials released on the web. Tabascoman77 12:44 (PST), 30 July 2007 (UTC)
For the image in the article, I've included a fair use rationale. --CmdrClow 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Clow. The use of the photo is fair use and falls under all ten guidelines. There is no reason for it to be removed except to be stubborn. The photo illustrates the "Development" (read: acting) portion of the article as the Nolans-IMAX photo illustrates the "Filming" portion and the BatPod illustrates the "Production Design" portion. Tabascoman77 3:09 (PST), 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do not believe that the fair use rationale for the Joker image is sufficient. The rationale currently covers three articles, which is inappropriate for fair use criteria. A specific rationale must be declared for the application of the image in each article in which it is included. The article for The Dark Knight has direct ties to the other two images used in the Production section, but the tie to the Joker image is vaguer. There is no actual description of the Joker himself, just his background, and the image does not help identify that background. It is not connected to the context, thus its purpose here and at the other articles is decorative. This same issue arose with the first Joker image that was released, and I believe it is too swift to include the film's latest promotional image. There will be more detail about the Joker's look and a more direct image of his appearance in the future. Also, I take offense that you think we would oppose you just to be stubborn; it does not assume good faith of other editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok people, do we need to hold your hands. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. It says plain as day, for "critical commentary". Now read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically the part that says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". Having this image does not do that because you are not talking about it. You have no critical commentary (as I provided a link to where it says that as well). No critical commentary = No use. Plain and simple. Images are not eye candy. You can't just have an image to show a picture of someone, when that image is non-free.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have recently had a conversation with Erik about coming to a compromise on this issue. The image of the Joker Holding a knife to Rachel Dawes will remain on the page dealing with the Jokers appearance's in different media. It will not be posted on this page.
I will say in a sidebar that I share some of the other editors frustration with wikipedia image policy. I find it at times rather absurd and others downright stupid.
However, I agree with Erik that at this time that the image is not relevant to this particular article. Indeed, in the way it's been placed in the article it feels awkward and out of place.
I hope this will be a sufficient compromise for all concerned.annoynmous 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Erik, you and BigNole can take offense at my comments as much as the two of you would like. Out of all the editors I have come across on Wikipedia, you guys are the most stubborn. Your rules always take prescedence and whatever the two of you say, goes. Why don't you guys just call this place, "ErikBigNolePedia" since that is what it has become? The plain-and-simple fact is, the picture we posted is important due to the fact that it's the first publicity still showing the Joker in action, showing two of the actors in action and, essentially, illustrated the acting/development portion of the article and served to detail the article further. I submit to the compromise because...well, what other choices do the other editors have? You guys reverse any other changes we make, so it really doesn't matter in the long run, does it? There should be no reason, AT ALL, why this image does not belong on this page. None at all. As the above poster said, the image policy is rather absurd and downright stupid. This case represents that comment in the worst way. Tabascoman77 7:54 (PST), 30 July 2007
I will choose to ignore the snide remarks you have made and attempt to explain something about rationales for non-free images. There have been events in the past year in which the application of fair use rationale on non-free images has been more stringent, such as removing images from lists of episodes. How images are used in Featured Articles about films may no longer currently apply. Hence there is a slow shift from the traditional use of images to a newer, more specifically defined image. The image of the Joker does not fit any context in the article. It does not clearly reflect how the background shaped the character, nor does it comment on the appearance (which is nothing like the sources that have been invoked). There will be coverage about the Joker's appearance, and with that, an image, preferrably a more upfront image, will be included to accompany that coverage. If you would like to debate this matter, I would suggest being more civil. Being insulting gets you no points and also damages credibility in future discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Erik...you have never SEEN ME be uncivil. Those remarks, as "insulting" as you think they are or may be, are me at my most CORDIAL.
I am not going to apologize for my remarks, nor will I take them back because they are absolutely true. If I hurt your feelings by pointing out the obvious, obtain thicker skin.
You CAN put the image in the article, either to illustrate the development section or the "cast/crew" section. You just choose not to and there is STILL no good reason why you cannot.
I wish not to discuss the matter further and I consider this case closed because there would be no point. Tabascoman77 8:21 (PST), 30 July 2007
Yay, case closed. Tabascoman77, your comments were definitely incivil and hostile. I support not including the image as well. If you don't like how others edit, may I suggest you avoid that page? There are millions of Wikipedia articles, and some can certainly use your help. Good luck. ThuranX 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have already dropped the matter. What I said was neither uncivil or hostile in that I haven't resorted to name-calling or threatening others. The remarks I made are observations that point out the obvious: I, and other contributors, have dealt with some very stubborn, very anal senior editors who have no idea what "compromise" is or what it entails. Erik and BigNole are, in my opinion, the very definition of anal and stubborn. That's nothing they haven't heard before and that's merely an observation of character. Compared to the remarks I have read on other talk pages, I am a saint. I'm not going to avoid the page because, now, you're making my point for me: the contributions and input of junior contributors are unwelcome on pages where the senior majority rules. I am going to contribute where I can (as I have, in the past) and help out wherever I want to help out. Tabascoman77 9:22 (PST), 30 July 2007
Added section that gives the image relevance in the article. --CmdrClow 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The added section is commentary, and has been removed. PureSoldier 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The added section is critical analysis as it pertains to the film and traditional interpretations of The Joker, and has been re-added. --CmdrClow 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical analysis

The "critical analysis", as stated, is commentary and OR. Wikipedia is not the place for one's view on different subjects. It's also not the place for three pictures smashed together. The new section is trivial, at best and needs a MAJOR rewrite, if it is to stay. PureSoldier 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In agreement that the new section was OR. The editor was trying to justify the use of the new Joker image with his own commentary. He has violated 3RR in reverting multiple editors' removals of his contributions, and a report has been filed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The phone #

On the site why so serious. Whats the phone #?Lord Sinestro 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that? Your writing is too mobile phone-ish for me. Alientraveller 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

what im saying is the # should be put on the page and i want to know what it is.Lord Sinestro 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, doesn't sound that important. Alientraveller 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion imo its a piece of important marketing.Lord Sinestro 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a directory. We aren't here to publish phone numbers, or help further along someone else's marketing techniques. Provide a reliable source that discusses the phone number. You can't just say "Call this number, and it will prove it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The phone number plays a recording of one of Joker's hostages reading a statement. ARBlackwood 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Film continuity?

It appears this film follows after the end of Batman Begins, but is there any evidence or information available yet that says whether or not this will lead into the plot of the 1989 Batman film, or if it will take a completely different direction with the Joker and become a new storyline rather than a Star Wars-esque wrap-around to the original movies? 24.99.238.8 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been widely reported and understood since Batman Begins was first made that this series of batman movies is 100% unrelated to the earlier series of batman movies. DurinsBane87 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

rent-a-clown.com

Thought I'd give you all the heads up on this one ready for the inevitable rush of people eager to place the link in the article. Haven't checked out its authenticity or otherwise yet.

- Bill 12.02BST 31st July 2007

Hidden Message

To add to that, there is a hidden message hidden in the source code for Rent-a-Clown.com, Hidden as lower case letters in a Series of "HAHAHA"s that are spread out through out the actual source code for the site. This is an obvious reference to the hidden text and message from ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. Unlike the message on that site though which is "see you in december", likely a reference to the release date of the first real trailer or further promotional material, this message is more of a taunt simply reading "made you look". I think it is perhaps worth mentioning in effect to show the detail and effort that is being put into the ARG viral campaign for the film. epocalypse 17:32, July 31, 2007 (UCT)

The detail is not notable because it has not received independent coverage by a reliable source. Your analysis of the detail constitutes original research as well, so it's not appropriate for the encyclopedic context of the article. If there is independent coverage about the effort of this viral marketing campaign, that coverage can be reported in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks more like some guy got pics of his friends and everyone and comicon in the new joker makeup, and/or did it to others for free, then put them up. Maybe it was a promotion from ComicCon? if so, it's inherently LESS notable, as it's a gallery from an onsite promotion, not actual adding to the plot and so on. ThuranX 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind the first part.
Just a correction: Whysoserious.com, under the studio, redirects to Rent-a-clown.com, so it's not fan-based or anything. Of course, your arguments still stand, in terms of notability and verifiability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we update the EL section to reflect the redirect?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Per WP:EL, supplementary content should be provided by the links. Pictures of the people who participated in the Great Joke Hunt of 2007 don't really add anything to the article. The problem now, though, is that whysoserious.com used to host the teaser trailer, but now it's gone. I guess that's why there's that minor site that's been attempting to be added as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I think Alien did the right thing by removing it, since it doesn't add anything any longer. Though, we might want to remove that inline citation that used that website, since it's technically not going to show what it was citing any longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

You could always add the info to the filming aspects of the article. It has the perfect lead-in from Nolan's comments about shooting in IMAX. Thoughts? TabascoMan77 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, since it's Chicago-related, I've included it in the same context as the other Chicago details. I've also included mention of Rory's First Kiss using the citation from The Guardian (which I provided in a discussion since archived, and now have finally implemented). Feel free to look over the changes made and make any comments or copy-edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarecrow

I was checking up on Cillian Murphy's wikipedia article, and it says that he was on the set of the Dark Knight [there was an argument over it's authenticity an archive or two ago]. The "evidence" of this information was here in the article's references list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cillian_Murphy#_note-MegaStar If we're not going to confirm his appearance in the actual Dark Knight (film) article, then I think the info should be removed from his page. I guess it depends on whether or not MegaStar.com is a reliable source of information or just another stupid tabloid. Long story short: we have conflicting information on the Dark Knight article and Cillian Murphy's article. ARBlackwood 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the information from there with an explanation in the edit summary. The only valid Murphy reference is one in which he told MTV that he wouldn't be returning. There's been no verifiable information about his role other than an insider video that shows a masked Scarecrow figure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually there was a picture with him unmasked and Bale on the set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcflytrap (talk • contribs)
That doesn't fall under WP:RS. Alientraveller 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't say it did. Was just responding to Erik's comment about the only video was with a masked Scarecrow. Mcflytrap 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should say the scarecrow will appear (there´s no doubt about that) but not mention Cillian Murphy, y´know.~~franshu~~

That information is still bereft of a reliable source. Alientraveller 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that we have no idea of the extent of Murphy's involvement in the film, there's nothing we can say about his involvement. If he's back as the Scarecrow, in what context? A major player, a cameo, a brief portrayal that may be cut? We can't determine that from a picture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No... but we CAN determine the scarecrow IS in the film190.136.153.144 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No we can't. All we can determine is that someone looking like him might be in the film. There's a special thing called "editing", where people can sometimes be entirely cut from a film because a director feels their appearance doesn't add anything, but detracts from the film. There's a whole lot of "ifs" and "possiblies" and many other speculative words. Nothing that meets WP:RS has happened though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

too BIGNOLE: well your talk of editing is a speculation and i thought that was a no no for wikipedia 65.123.157.253 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong type of editing. He was talking about FILM EDITING. DurinsBane87 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

there may be "evidence" that Scarecrow will appear in the film, but the fact of the matter is, even if you have high resolution photographs of Cillian Murphy in and out of his costume on the set, wikipedia will not confirm anything on this film unless it is stated by Warner Bros. Seriously, keep your panties on, if Scarecrow truly is in the film, then sooner or later he will be added to the article. It's not like we're deliberately trying to keep him out of the article. ARBlackwood 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah and the talk of film editing is speculation wich is a no no this is not a talk page as bignole has stated before then has gone on to speculate himself. fact of the matter is we know there is a scarecrow and that it was filmed by chris nolan and i have a feeling just like the denttoo and soserious this too shall come to pass all we have to do is wait then say i told you so to the 2 editors who seem to be against truth when the time is right65.123.157.253 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't saying that we'll include talk of film editing in the article, he's saying that because film editing exists there's no proof that scarecrow will appear in the film. We can't add information like that based on photos, you need an article or release from a reliable source stating it. That's how wikipedia works, thats the guidelines involved. Wiki isn't about truth, it's about verifiablility. We only are allowed to add things that can be verified. Also, please take the efforts to improve your grammar, it's difficult to understand what you're rambling about at times. DurinsBane87 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

noted 65.123.157.253 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"ear in the film. We can't add information like that based on photos, you need an article or release from a reliable source stating it. That's how wikipedia works, thats the guidelines involved. Wiki isn't about truth, it's about verifiablility."

My impression was that Wikipedia is about truth through verifiability. --CmdrClow 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is reached through the verified material, not the other way around. DurinsBane87 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is what I said. Truth through verifiability. Truth is 50% of that. --CmdrClow 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
truth is the end result, and can only VERIFIABLE truth can be used. DurinsBane87 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the very first sentence at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (Bold is not mine.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

but you guys are verifying truth if its about verifiability then that means that we can verify something false and slap it in article if its by that logic ! 65.123.157.253 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, it usually not a lie. DurinsBane87 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

years ago it could have been verified that the earth was flat,that witches exist etc. Theres an article about god but he hasnt been verified to exist so since theres no verifiable source to prove god exists delete that article too! my point is that this is about verifiability and not truth you can verify something false and on that logic youd hafta slap it on the article as opposed to whats true. so its truth through verifiablity to verify that something is true not just about verifiability!65.123.157.253 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the wikipedia article about god claim that he exists, or just that people believe he exists? There are thousands of reliable sources saying that people believe he exists, but a church website or religious pamphlet is far from a reliable source. Even if religious sites were reliable for cetain things, they wouldn't be reliable about an article like that as it is a conflict of interest, which is overed in wikipedia's policies. If you don't care to read or follow wikipedia's policies, you really shouldn't be here editing. DurinsBane87 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

you picked what i said about god and ran with it and didnt adhere to the rest of the things i had to say or the point i made65.123.157.253 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop arguing and just listen to the consensus. Alientraveller 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ok i read it what are we agreeing to abide by ? also i havnt edited anything65.123.157.253 08:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To not add Scarecrow without a reliable source. In this case, it would be a cast member, including Murphy, saying he is in the film. Alientraveller 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i never said we should 65.123.157.253 10:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand at this point exactly what the unnamed user is arguing for (partially due to his grammar, but mostly because of his rambling on of "Henry knows that she knows. She knows Henry knows she knows and Henry knows that we know it.") Alright, what's the problem? The problem is that it is rumored that Scarecrow will be in the film. There have been photos taken that do not fall under a reliable source category. There have been no news articles, no magazine articles, no reliable internet articles, no reliable sources. Nothing can be placed on Wikipedia without a reliable source. The purpose of a reliable source is to determine information that can be included, for it is most likely true. I'm really not seeing what the argument is here. It cannot be included. Now, it was mentioned that a number of fans believe that Scarecrow will be in the film because of the previously stated pictures taken....... is there a reliable source for that? Is there a news article stating just that? No? Well then, there is no reliable source. That information cannot be included. How the unnamed user derives that by this logic lies can be posted is beyond me. The only this is possible is if someone lied to reliable source organization, in which case we've got new information for the article. The Filmaker 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing official is gonna be given about scarecrow as his appearance is a surprise moment in the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps. So we will wait until the actual film. Alientraveller 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And where is the source for the supposed "surprise moment"? I have yet to read a source (even an unreliable one) that states this is without a doubt a surprise moment. I've read assumptions and speculation, which are merely rumors. And we all know how we feel about rumors on Wikipedia. The Filmaker 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I noticed Scarecrow's wikipedia page basicly said he wasconfirmed. So unless things have changed (which I don't think they have, considering no change here or on The Dark Knight's article has been made)I think it should be removed. It said this:
Murphy has also been spotted filming on the set of Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight, reprising his role as The Scarecrow, though it's not known how big his role in the upcoming film may be, though being as the film focus is mainly on the Joker, it isn't expected his role is to be very big. In an interview with Wizard Magazine, David S. Goyer said that the Scarecrow's role in The Dark Knight probably won't be much bigger than Willem Dafoe's role in Spiderman 2. (Taken from Scarecrow (comics)
Does that sound reliable? I think it couldbe fake but I don't read Wizard. Should it be removed? User:Claycrow
I removed the mention of Murphy being spotted filming, and I added a citation-needed tag to the mention of the Wizard interview. I checked the site myself, but there's nothing there (yet). Sometimes Wizard magazines will have articles in print for some time before they get online. If you come across a link to the interview, feel free to provide it here, and we'll work in the Cillian Murphy information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Alternately, give us the issue number and apge info for a standard print citation. ThuranX 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering I've actually seen a screenshot of Scarecrow, I reckon Cillian Murphy should be added to the cast section. Defunct Lies 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a reliable source with that? Was it a release? or was it a "scooper" pic. Because, for the 1000000th time, scooper pics are not reliable, and aren't allowed to be included for both copyright and verifiability issues. DurinsBane87 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Does "scooper" mean leaked pic or something cause it was leaked and I came across it pretty much by mistake. Defunct Lies 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. DurinsBane87 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall

Anthony Michael Hall - Should be listed under the main actors, I think his role is significant. Legobrickmaster 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He is listed, but we don't know his role or its significance. Alientraveller 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alientraveller. Hall's actual role is not verifiable, and the role's significance is not independently clear. That's why we've included uncertain roles in a prose paragraph, until we can find out with independent evidence that a role is notable enough to be in the main actor list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:25, 7 August 2007(UTC)

It is has been rumored that Anthoney Michael Hall is to be Edward Nygma, who as we all know becomes the Riddler.Though the transformation is not expected to happen in this film.Two-face aka Harvey Dent(Aaron Eckhart) is supposed to be the next villain.So Legobrickmaster and Alientraveller are both correct, he is a very important key but just not in this film.Expect to see him in a few places in the movie probably dealing with new technology for Lucious Fox.(morgan Freeman) {chris bbd lyons) 4:09 am 10 august 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are not verifiable. We will need to wait for concrete coverage about the nature of Hall's role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my question, is it a "they haven't decided his role" type of thing, or do they just not want to tell us yet? User:Claycrow

The latter. As you can see above, there are rumors about his role. However, I'd like to remind you that per talk page guidelines, Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. It may be better to discuss the film in general at a place like IMDb. Also, to leave your signature, type four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

According to IESB.net, Hall's role is that of a reporter holding a personal grudge against Bruce Wayne. Would this website qualify as a reliable source? 74.67.115.198 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this was first www.hollywoodchicago.com/2007/08/scoop-anthony-michael-hall-in-dark.html reported here] and that site has been covering The Dark Knight accurately from the start. --Itsallthat 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty good first edit. Amazing how it hypes the page of a new, and recently reverted editor to this page, claiming the page is accurate and so on. That page admits it's a secret rumor from an anonymous scooper inside the project. Such an article is not verifiable to Wikipedia's standards. We can verify that the article exists, but not it's facts. ThuranX 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

David Banner

Does anyone outside the rap music scene know who he is? Does anyone outside the rap music scene care that he auditioned for Gamble yet lost out? This is hardly notable. Mcflytrap 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other actors auditioning for a role are always notable. Alientraveller 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that we don't know the degree of Gamble's role in the film, and that David Banner seems notable, and that MTV covered the audition, it seems best to include the information for the time being. When the film comes out, we can determine if his role is notable enough to warrant mention of Banner auditioning for Gamble. The same would go for other roles, such as the mayor of Gotham City. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Joker Image

[2] details of a panel at WizardWorld where the scarred and horrific image of the Joker is confirmed as the film image. AlanD 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. Alientraveller 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Terribly sorry if I've offended, was sent the info and posted it up here to try and be helpful not to seek sarcasm.AlanD 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

exclusive footage

It should be at least mentioned in the marketing section, in my opinion.franshu190.30.207.17 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are You talking about the WizardWorld Panal, cuz if so then i totally agree that it should be mentioned. After all, they did officially reveal that Harvey becomes Two-Face there. The Great Morgil 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

exactly, i´m talking about that. franshu190.136.96.203 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No verifiable, reliable source, then it doesn't go in. I don't know what would actually go in regardless. Just to say "there was some exclusive footage at WizardWorld"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scooper site, or a place to come for current events on your favorite subject. Things have to have encyclopedic relevance...and yes, I know there are plenty of articles that don't adhere to that, but this one tries to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. It's not encyclopedic to report the emergence of every promotional item in relation to the film. The viral marketing campaigns have been notable, but it's commonplace for footage to be shown. The footage mention would be fleeting because when the film comes out, there won't be much use for mentioning it. The viral marketing, though, is something that can remain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If footage was shown, then it´s as notable as the viral marketing campaign or the guys dressed like the joker... it´s even more relevant than that. franshu190.136.159.20 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Footage being shown isn't as notable as a viral marketing campaign, which I don't think is that notable itself considering the lack of coverage it actually got outside the comic book community. It's just simple footage. No more, no less.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's commonplace for footage of upcoming films to be shown, whether at conferences or expos or in teasers and TV spots. Unless there is some unique notability for its presentation, such as what was done to show both the first Joker image and the first teaser trailer for this film, or for a certain untitled teaser, it doesn't really warrant inclusion. Is it really notable to mention that The Invasion or some other upcoming release just had a new TV spot last night? I would suggest thinking of this article in terms of the long run; what information would be appropriate to last "forever" here? Commonplace commercial acts would not be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a trailer (or exclusive footage, in this case) is ALWAYS more important than, for example, how much money will be left in Chicago because of the film, or something like that. Nobody actually cares... nobody who´s looking for TDK info, don´t misunderstand me. It is also more relevant than the actors who "wanted to play" this or that character but at the end didn´t (what´s the sense of this? it´s almost trivial info). franshu190.31.43.155 21:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So clearly you care more for fiction than facts. Alientraveller 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to say "you're outta yo mind" if you think a trailer airing is more important than the real world content such as how much money the film makes Chicago--if it helped in some way other then some novice amount of cash, like if the city was in a deficit which was fixed because of this production. Wikipedia is not a news organization, or an entertainment chathouse. We aren't here to serve your filming needs; try SuperHeroHype, or BatmanOnFilm if you want that. We're here to bring the public the best encyclopedic articles possible. Something as extraneous as footage shown at WizardWorld is not encyclopedic, and neither is mentioning a trailer being aired. I think linking to the trailer is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor, we have no intention of catering to fanboys. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this involves the real-world context of what has influenced the film's development or how the film's production has impacted local economies of its shooting locations and whatever else WP:MOSFILMS entails. A list of scenes shown in the exclusive footage is not long-lasting, encyclopedic information. The interest of actors in portraying the Joker and Harvey Dent reflects the popularity of this revitalized franchise; it's part of the film's reputation that actors would express interest in a role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I´m not asking you to DESCRIBE the footage, but tgo mention it was shown. If you don´t, then the marketing section is senseless... if you make a marketing section you MUST mention marketing campaigns. The exclusive footage in WWC is as relevant as... uhhh, another example..... the comic con spider-man 3 trailer showing venom, remember?. franshu190.136.153.88 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do think marketing sections are senseless, unless they have some notability to them. Some films have that some do not. In most cases, it would be one of the first sections I would vote to be removed if an article became too long--unless evidence can be shown that the marketing was notable in some way. Also, "exclusive footage" is not marketing when it's shown to a limited number of people who have access to the event. It isn't some wide-scale event.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Bignole is right. It's rather indiscriminate to say that a studio has provided a film by promoting its footage or by distributing promotional materials. Like Bignole said, if there are unique marketing ploys, like the two viral marketing campaigns that have been had for this film, it can be covered as notable highlights of the marketing. For example, in Production, cameras are used to film these movies, extras are hired to stand in the background, lights need to be hooked up for interior scenes. These are things to expect, and the distribution of footage and promotional materials like posters are also to be expected. I don't believe that revealing footage of the film, whether for this or in upcoming trailers or TV spots, are notable in the long run. We don't cover the revealing of images like the new Batsuit or the Batpod, but since there was content based on them, it was included. We included real-world context from that convention about production, but there's nothing unique about footage being shown. Films eventually show footage before their release at some point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Only those things which make a particular marketing campaign unique, and/or draw attention in a non-traditional manner, such as 360 experiences and so on, are worth noting. Finally, franshu, PLEASE register. You switch IPs regularly, making conversation with you in any way other than talk pages impossible. Register the franshu name, thank you. ThuranX 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AHH ERIK BIGNOLE AND THURAN ON POINT AS USUAL I DUB YOU THE VERIFIABULLYS

OK, I´ll register, but actually I don´t have very much time so maybe I´ll wait some time before doing so. franshu190.137.19.199 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Right, I´ve just registered. I don´t know what you wanted to tell me but you can do it now.Franshu 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable that footage was shown but it's very notable that a not-so-well-known rapper auditioned for a minor role, and lost! Mcflytrap 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's rank?

Are we sure Gordon is commissioner now? Wasn't he just promoted to a lieutenant in the last movie? Or has that been re-retconned?

It could be someone's mistake while reporting, or it could be that we don't know the amount of time that has passed since the last film and he could have gotten promoted again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the source, Gordan says "We can call him commissioner now." I think it's a bit to ambiguous at this point to add the information. The Filmaker 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

At the Panel yesterday at the WizardWorld Convention in Chicago, They did call him the "former lieutenant now commissioner Gordon".The Great Morgil 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you do not have an actual reliable source, that is beyond "I was there.", than we cannot keep the information. The Filmaker 00:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering the fact that any and all electronic devices were banned from the event, I think any evidence is impossible. The Great Morgil 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And thus, it cannot be included. No reliable sources. The Filmaker 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsarama's link doesn't seem to be working anymore... anyway, it seemed to be a reliable enough source, but Wizard's coverage doesn't mention anything right now. (Besides, I think I heard in the rumor mill that Commissioner Loeb was back?) I've excluded mention for now until something concrete arises. A detail like this doesn't demand inclusion at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that since our cast lists are supposed to reflect either the official cast list or the cast as they first appear, he may end the film with the fall of Loeb and the rise of Gordon. Until we know, let's hold off. ThuranX 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Premise section

Why was the Premise section removed and included in the lead section? It doesn't conform to WP:LEAD, which should be a concise overview of the article. I don't think we had the most developed lead section before the premise was merged into it, but I think the Premise section should exist on its own. What we could do is write a fuller lead section that encompasses the production and the marketing of the film, and the premise can be mentioned very briefly, "Batman confronts the Joker," or something like that. It just seems odd to have "unique" information in the lead section that does not exist in the article, even though that Premise section is small. (My expectation is that an official synopsis will be revealed in time, in which we can rewrite in a neutral tone, to lengthen the section some more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the change. I don't believe it should have been moved either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
restored it. ThuranX 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I merged it into the lead section because I found the small section to ugly, and felt it didn't deserve it's own section. The lead is normally an overview of the entire article that does not contain as Erik put it "unique information", however this does not mean that unique information is forbidden, nor is it even discouraged. And there is no reason I can see that it shouldn't be allowed in the lead, provided that it is not trivial and cannot be merged into other sections with subjects that deserve there own sections. The Star Wars film articles, up until recently, contained the note akin to "Among fans it is commonly referred to as (abbreviation for film title)". (for the record, they were removed for the lack of a good reference) If you'd like to find actual reasonings for it being an overview. The cast section pretty much provides the same information, with Batman, Gordon, and Dent rounding up criminals and fighting the Joker, although reference can still be kept. The Filmaker 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that it can be granted that there will be some redundancy between Synopsis-type sections and Cast sections about plot details, whether the article is for a future film or a released film. I understand that unique information can exist in the lead section under certain circumstances, but this information is usually sentences like the one you mentioned, not a full paragraph. I believe that we should instead rewrite the lead section to encompass the article better, with a sentence mention of the premise like I mentioned before, about Batman dealing with the Joker. (I don't usually focus on lead sections for future films since they tend to change rapidly, but we could have a full one here for the sake of being comprehensive.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some information

After researching the website IGN.com in the movie section they have seemed to have gotten a screen new actual footage trailer and from the information given it seems to be that A.Two face will appears in this movie B.Nothing on scarecrow has been said meaning he might be in the movie for nothing but a quick cameo and C.That Ledger will neither be doing a Jack Nicholson take or Mark Hammill(In the TAS) take on the joker but from what the film makers say he has his own style that is just as good check it out http://movies.ign.com/articles/812/812404p1.html

I'm not positive whether or not IGN.com falls under WP:RS. But I'm not an expert on the subject. The Filmaker 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Already cited, and IGN is a reliable source: a diamond in the rough. Alientraveller 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IGN is fairly reputable in its own right; it provides exclusive interviews and set visits. However, when it reports something as a rumor, it should be overlooked. It's not The New York Times in terms of scooper reports being substantial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I just didn't see the information so yeah my bad for posting already posted information--Change is coming and potter should have died 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New Images

Look here http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11644 can we use this somewhere or not? ManofSTEEL 2772

At the moment, no, because we have no critical commentary to accompany any new images. But, it should be ok to leave this link here for later, when the article is more developed. There were some good images in there, like one of the Joker and Batman, and I'm sure that when the article is more fleshed out these will provide better quality then a simply screenshot via DVD. That is, if we find that what's on those pages is something we can use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some huge spoilers in there! ManofSTEEL 2772

Very interesting... It looks like some of those were scenes shoen in the exclusive footage they showed (Joker and batman in the interrogation room, etc). I don´t see what spoilers the photos can have... at least, I already knew there were a lot of batmans in this film. I don´t know if anyone has realized, but one of those pics (the one where all the fake batmans are) show a guy who looks like cilian murphy. Am I OK or it´s just that I´m obesssed with seeing the scarecrow again?Franshu 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actual Joker pics.

If these arent correctly sourced or cited with truth, i apologize.

(link removed)

(link removed)

(link removed) found them there.

As said below, these cannot be included unless they are used with critical commentary. The Filmaker 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard rumours said warner bross had those pics taken down and already told some site who had them. The rumours also said the pics were stolen without permission. Don't have any reliable sources to support the rumours though. Should wait for the reliable source. (PS: I believe the picture was real due some of the picture coincidentally match the trailer report from wizard world chicago [3]) Kunderemp 18:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the images have been removed from numerous websites, which is more reason not to include the images. I don't think it matters to discuss their inclusion due to the illegal distribution. When images are distributed in an official capacity, we can see about matching them with any relevant content in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. We don´t want to get into truble, do we?Franshu 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman Picture

in the article you discuss the design of the new batsuit. there are pictures out there that show the new suit. i would like to see a picture of the batsuit in the article because you can describe it all you want but i know that you dont get the full effect of how different it is unless you see. this is just a suggestion but i do believe it would improve the article because you do describe the differences, so show them as well. ~DOUBLE D~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.73.142 (talk)

Consensus was reached here. Alientraveller 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Reason for not using it is because we had to decide on either the Batsuit or the Batpod, and the Batpod had more real world content available describing it. We cannot have both, because the section on the design cannot support two images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
An additional reason is that the current official image of the Batsuit is not quite clear, either. The illegally leaked photos of the new Batsuit obviously cannot belong on Wikipedia. When more overall information about Design is forthcoming (see length of Batman Begins#Batsuit), we can incorporate that information and the relevant photo. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

understood....i didnt notice the previous discussion about it....sorry ~Double D~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.73.142 (talk) 22:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

New Budget info

The budget for the movie now exceeds $200 million, see here http://movies.ign.com/articles/814/814250p1.html Consider changing the budget info of the main article accordingly. 72.49.194.69 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

IGN isn't as reliable as the Chicago offices. Alientraveller 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that IGN cites a scooper report from HollywoodChicago.com. So someone purportedly involved with the studio sharing this information isn't verifiable. $50 million is a big difference, and I'm sure a more reliable source will surface about the budget growth, provided that it's true. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IGN isn't reliable? Do you realize that countless video game and other media articles strewn across Wikipedia cite IGN as a source? Why should it be considered unreliable in one article, yet reliable in hundreds of others? I don't really care that you change the budget info, but you need to clarify what you say when suggesting IGN cannot be cited. 72.49.194.69 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

An example of this, I cited IGN in the article for the videogame 'F.E.A.R. Sequel' under the citation name of "Monolith's Paranormal Project" in which I added a release date to the article. The editors (I'm guessing) apparently found that acceptable. 72.49.194.69 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

IGN isn't as reliable dude. Don't mess with wording silly boy/girl. Alientraveller 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to be condescending. I think he just needed a clearer explanation about why the IGN citation would not be appropriate here (the scooper issue). I'm sure if IGN had an exclusive interview with a producer that said the budget went up to $200 million, IGN would be appropriate to cite here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry there fellow editors. Alientraveller 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Location

cbs2chicago.com says: "Star Christian Bale will be seen hanging out around the IBM Building on Wabash -- since that's doubling for the headquarters of Wayne Enterprises." I don't remember if this was covered in Batman Begins, but the article for the building is here. Worth including? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight conflict -- 330 North Wabash isn't the home to IBM anymore, Hyatt Center (on S. Wacker Drive) is. So which building should it be assumed? Hyatt Center looks like the one, so I don't know how to word this reference with the apparent conflict. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we wait. Besides, wasn't Wayne Enterprises the Chicago Board of Trade Building? Alientraveller 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we'll wait, but I have a feeling that it's 330 North Wabash -- it was known as IBM Plaza, where Hyatt Center hosts a bunch of companies. I don't remember the film, though... I thought that was the central water hub? Bignole saw the movie recently, he should be able to tell us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as exteriors are concerned, neither really look like Wayne Enterprises, they could have doubled on the inside. But, I'm sure I'll be going through the DVD special features for the BB FA drive after the review section is done, and if it was different then we could note that they changed the building stand-ins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Loeb

Loeb is in this film, so Colin McFarlane should be added into the cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually have a reliable source... Alientraveller 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just love Anon? 72.49.194.69 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

HollywoodChicago.com

I'm a Chicago journalist and film critic. I haven't updated anything in this article until now and I'm noticing everything I'm adding is being deleted. I have been a Chicago journalist since 2000. I have been reporting accurately on The Dark Knight since day one of filming. I can point out hundreds of news articles around the Web from other legitimate publications that have referenced my reports. My news thread on The Dark Knight www.hollywoodchicago.com/labels/dark_knight.html here] has a good deal of verifiable information that is not in the Wikipedia article for the film. What is the best way for me to include this information such that I meet Wikipedia's policies? --AdamFendelman 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left you a long note about this on your talk page. The bare bones of it is, you've admitted yourself that it's your blog, and comprised of original content. Both are red flags on Wikipedia, and while occcasionally blogs can be cited, within narrow constraints, Original Content is almost 100% no no. (I say almost because WP is huge, and if I make it absolute, someone will show up in a blink to show me the ONE exception to policy). That's why in the nutshell. Sorry it works out that way, but ultimately, it make this place stronger and stable. ThuranX 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what was said above by the editor, thanks for mentioning this. I would not have found the content otherwise and I found it very informative and full of interesting details. 72.49.194.69 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua
I agree with the reasons that Alientraveller and ThuranX have left on your talk page. The information is not appropriately verifiable in not coming from a reliable source, among the reasons of spam and COI. Twenty years down the road, looking back at this article, it would not strike anyone as encyclopedic that a film critic's blog of scooper contacts was used to substantiate information about the film. If the information is verifiable, it will become publicized in more reliable sources in due time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I´ve seen the promotional logo has been changed and now is one with the joker´s face. I thought that poster was fake, and I think that this had even been discussed before. Franshu 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blame the ignorant newbie, that's all. Alientraveller 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He might not even be aware that the image was fake. Let's AGF, huh? It should have been removed, in any case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that he was ignorant if he added a fake, so I sent him a message. Alientraveller 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

'Dark Knight' flies to Hong Kong - Not sure if this adds anything to the detail already in the article about the Hong Kong filming. There's a lot of uncertain detail, but just placing it here if anyone seems anything worth implementing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Batman" film technician dies in accident - Again, not sure of its relevance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Below is the citation template for the original source of the coverage seen here:

  • Lawrie Masterson (2007-09-23). "Old Joker Caine in awe of Heath". Herald Sun. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

What Caine said about Ledger's Joker in comparison to Nicholson's Joker could be relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it go under Ledger or Caine's information? Alientraveller 09:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it depends... I was thinking that the relevance may be less later on when obviously everyone will be comparing Ledger's Joker to Nicholson's Joker. I think it should go with Ledger's information as a temporary description. For example, "Caine described Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker to be 'like a clown figure, benign but wicked', and that Ledger's portrayal in comparison was that of a 'really scary psychopath'." Sound good? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The technician headline's relevant to the production, but not the plot stuff. In-universe, it's nothing, real world, fairly important, as deaths on set are rare, not ordinary. My 2 cents. ThuranX 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, dude, it's in Filming. Alientraveller 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he was taking a broader perspective in looking at the issue, meaning that the death doesn't shape the in-universe outcome of the film (as other production details would do, like filming locations), but the rarity of a crewperson's death on set makes it notable. At least, that's what I got out of his 2 cents. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik got it. Exacty what I meant. It's notable as an event in and of itself, exclusive of the production, as a result of both it's relative rarity and the... 'size' of the productionv (not unlike the helicopter crash on Twilight Zone). I know it's in the article, AT, I'm merely supporting that. ThuranX 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark Knight Marketing

Six Flags theme parks has announced 3 new attractions to come out in 2008 featuring the Dark Knight name. These new rides are based off of the Dark Knight film and will create a marketing alliance in 2008. The description of the rides states that you "Be transformed into a citizen of Gotham City — caught in the middle of a city under siege and torn apart by The Joker.

With The Dark Knight, experience the ride of a lifetime. Venture through demented hallways of twists, turns and hallucinatory images, while being tormented by The Joker himself. Then set foot onto a distressed, vandalized train platform. You can only guess at what awaits as you speed through six 180-degree hairpin turns, climb unseen hills, plunge into pitch darkness and dip into unforeseen danger. As you attempt to escape the terror, your only hope is that Gotham's Silent Guardian —Batman — can save you! " September 27th 2007

These rides are opening at Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey, Six Flags Great America in Illinois, and Six Flags New England in Massachusetts.

This would be useful information in the marketing section for The Dark Knight Film.

http://www.sixflags.com/greatAmerica/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx http://www.sixflags.com/newEngland/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx http://www.sixflags.com/greatAdventure/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx

A couple of actual headlines to address this: Daily Herald and UltimateRollercoaster.com. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Britain

I have looked and found that so far there are more British Actors than American! Y2J RKO 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point being...?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
My guess would be his point is that there are more British actors on this movie than Americans. Of course, what you meant to ask is that why put that here on a talk page for thew article when it should be on a discussion forum. Good question... --Vinnyvinny2 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if he was just stating a fact, or if he was trying to insinuate that this is a British film and not an American film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
To throw in my $0.02, unless there's a verifiable reason for this selection (could simply be happenstance), or maybe when a reviewer makes that observation when the film comes out, it doesn't warrant a mention in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be like a random coincidence. If we fill the article with things like this, then we will have an unmanageable trivia section, which I understand isn't loved by the wikipedia staff. --Vinnyvinny2 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not particularly. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Let them do as they will, but if it start to become a long list of pointless facts, then it has to go. I'm hopping off for dinner. --Vinnyvinny2 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Filming the Narrows

Time Magazine; October 8, 2007, page 27, has a brief mention of the film. "Filing for the next Batman installment is set to begin this November in bustling Hong Kong, but local politicians are worried that noisy film sets and traffic jams could disrupt the metropolis. An official warned residents to "prepare earplugs" for the helicopters that will be used to film lat-night scenes." Could this information go into the production section, or is Time Magazine an unreliable resource? ARBlackwood 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you're using hte hostile sarcasm, but yes, the nformation can go in, go ahead and add it in. ThuranX 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Information on local concern over the noise is in the article. Alientraveller 12:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't using hostile sarcasm, I'm still not 100% clear on Wikipedia's use of irrefutable resources. ARBlackwood 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
TIME magazine = good source. Almost all news organizations would be considered reliable sources. Now, if MSNBC says, "we heard from an anonymous source..." I wouldn't consider the information itself reliable, regardless of MSNBC's reliability. There information may be 100% true, but we're built on verifiability and not truth, and we wouldn't be able to verify an anonymous source. Blogs would be unreliable, unless they are the blog of someone working on the film, and by someone working on the film I mean someone who has a significant position, like the writer, producer, director, production manager, etc etc. The blog of the "Best Boy" wouldn't really cut it. Verifiability is the top priority, and usually you can determine the reliability of a source by the verifiability of the information. Push comes to shove, just ask...as you did. Someone will always weigh in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on the matter about avoiding mainstream newspapers' usage of anonymous sources -- they do this a lot with politics. I think that because of the reliable source's background for fact-checking and editorial oversight permits the mention of that information, though the reliable source should be identified. Reports from anonymous sources are not as acceptable from movie websites because of the lack of reliable source criteria if the information is not publicly from the primary sources (filmmakers). On movie websites, all it would take is a friend-of-a-friend to e-mail the webmaster and pass along the information, which will have dubious circulation. However, if The New York Times writes about reports from inside the studio regarding troubles with production, that's verifiable content per WP:V. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict per usual) The general rule of thumb, at least for film information, is that mainstream newspapers and magazines are considered reliable because the criteria is to have a reputation for fact-checking and having editorial oversight. Websites are trickier because they tend to be the forefront of rumors in some cases, but they can provide some great interviews in others. Time definitely qualifies as a good reliable source, but I think that the existing Reuters citation in the article covers the bases. If you think that there's anything missing in the description, feel free to say so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The same thing could be applied to those political "anonymous sources". All it takes is one disgruntled employee to spread some rumors under an "anonymous" title. Doesn't necessarily meant any facts were checked.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how political articles receive coverage of anonymous sources by reliable sources like the New York Times, but for content to be verifiable, it needs to be published by a reliable source. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, so anonymous sources would be certain to be tied to the production. With movie websites, there's no assurance that an anonymous person reporting a scoop truly has ties with the film's production. Here's an example that came to mind: Across the Universe, "Mr. Roth’s moves have left Ms. Taymor feeling helpless and considering taking her name off the movie, according to an individual close to the movie who would not be named because of the sensitivity of the situation." Wouldn't it be acceptable to include this detail or similar details using proper wording? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd concur with Erik here, BigNole. Esp. in light of the coverage in instances like Jayson Blair and CBS News/dan rather, the usual verification protocols broke down, and then the story about the story makes news. Usually all serious journalistic endeavours hold some significant standards, even Fox news, though not any of it's attendant 'analysis' shows, like Oreilly, Hannity, and so on. What makes Fox suh a target is that it seems to pick and choose what facts are reported, and what context they're given, not thatthe facts themselves are false, just that taken in the wrong, or no, context, it's easy to mislead. As Erik says, though, JoBlo and AICN don't have to use those standards, and indeed, if they were using those standards, they'd have little to nothing to report, so their standards aren't the same. It's not perfect, but it's reliable enough that when a major news organization cites an anon source, it's usually to confirm facts they've already found, or use facts to build a case around such a report. It's very rare to see an anon source as the ONLY source for the facts. ThuranX 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To me, no. I don't typically like using information from sources who keep their names in the dark, as it makes it hard to attribute the verified information to someone. The information is verifiable, yes, the source is reliable, yes, but the information itself is not reliable to me because we cannot attribute to anyone but "an individual close to the movie". What if that individual was the Dolly Grip? They're close to the movie, yet I wouldn't trust their knowledge of the events that took place, most likely, behind closed doors. That's just me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fragmented storytelling

5 QUESTIONS WITH… CHRISTOPHER NOLAN - Nolan on how The Dark Knight will be structured. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the citation, but I'm not sure if I captured correctly what the director said. Feel free to take a look at my revision and comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keysi

Should the use of the Keysi Fighting Method in the Dark Knight be mentioned in this article?(http://www.keysikfm.com/darkknight.php) 24.24.90.148 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The detail has been added, though the fighting method article could use some improvement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Preview

There will be a 7 minute preview of The Dark Knight in the imax version of "I Am Legend". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman0056 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about this, but is there actual confirmation about the preview rather than movie blog rumblings? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Joker's attributes

Total Film talked to Christian Bale, who said about the Joker, "It’s a much more anarchic, punk rock, almost junkie version of it. He’s that kind of psycho kid that just will do anything and has absolutely no conscience and morals – I think they’ve done a real nice job with his look. It’s certainly a whole lot more dangerous; there’s a bit of Clockwork Orange there, a bit of Sid Vicious, a whole lot of great, anarchic personalities blended within The Joker." How shall we whittle this down to describe the character in the appropriate bulleted entry? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to use bullets?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant to put Bale's description somewhere in the bulleted entry beginning with Heath Ledger as The Joker. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh..lol. Do you think we really need to whittle any down? We don't really have much more than casting news in there now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant summarizing the quote to the keywords. Something like, "Bale described the Joker to have anarchic and punk rock traits to the character, citing influences from A Clockwork Orange and Sid Vicious in Ledger's portrayal." (Hey, didn't we have A Clockwork Orange descriptive bit cited in this article sometime ago?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely remember something like that, but you'd be hard pressed to find it from the history. I'd defintely include the "no conscience and morals" bit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note about archiving

When we go into November, I suggest we archive all October discussions to Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 4 and any discussion afterward will go into Archive 5. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

I found this in SHH: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6414

There´s no doubt is a reliable source, as its an official page. I don´t know if we could state that a new trailer will come out this halloween, but at least its useful to show how influenced this film was by THE LONG HALLOWEEN.Franshu 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that common imagery isn't indicative of much. We've had discussions about the level of detail regarding marketing, and the inclusion of each and every image would constitute little more than a trivia list or 'indiscriminate collection of facts'. Further, can we be sure that the subtleties of the advertising are being managed by Nolan and the creative team of the film, or is that aspect being run by a marketing group who found an image in the comics which would be well noted by comics folks and which was appropraite to the calendar and season. ThuranX 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no verifiable content by reliable sources about what a pumpkin on that website means. For all we know, it could mean, "Happy Halloween!" and nothing more. Until we hear more about the reason for the pumpkin, there's no encyclopedic value in mentioning its appearance in the month of All Hallows' Eve. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think now it´s pretty obvious what will happen, isn´t it?: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6421Franshu 17:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it; depending on what it turns out to be, we can use that SHH headline if necessary (or hopefully something better) when the event takes place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Well, then, we´ll have to wait until the end of this monthFranshu 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

hey verifiabullys notice the mouths bat shape —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.157.253 (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Half the face is decayed - Two Face reveal perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ComicBookMovie.com points out a similarity between the pumpkin at WhySoSerious.com and a panel from The Long Halloween. Depending on what the viral site ends up showing, maybe the citation could be used as an independent observation of the similarity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's of value to remember that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a source of new and breaking info on the topic. We aren't supposed to be the first ones with the info; We are supposed to be the ones with the best-sourced info. Sometimes that takes time. The distinction between seeking the scoop and seeking the most solid should be lost on no one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We won´t have to wait too much, as Halloween is a few days away...Franshu 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The website updated, showing what looks like an incomplete ransom letter (xacto knife, scotch tape, little squares of images). Message: "Hey Clowns! Ready to do what you're told? First, don't start before daylight. With a police force this corrupt, it's not safe to be out at night, and anyway, you won't be able to see the things you want to find. Follow my directions to the letter and send photos of what you find." If you click on the little squares, each one has the name of an American city (Chicago, Denver, Miami, et cetera), and instructions on where to start and where to go. It currently doesn't say what you're looking for, but apparently you're supposed to send a photo of it, based on the current letter's instructions. It looks like another scavenger hunt like the one that took place at Comic Con earlier this July, only this one is nation-wide. The previous scavenger hunt revealed a teaser trailer which was attached to the Simpsons Movie. 63.139.169.49 06:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the directions lead you to a letter in the alphabet. The message still has yet to be deciphered; there are a few missing letters. Using common sense, I filled in the blanks and got this: "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules," which seems befitting to how Bale described the Joker as being anarchistic. 63.139.169.49 16:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you click that Idon´tknowwhatit is- thingy at the right side of the window, you´ll be able to see a new photo of the Joker.Franshu 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a new challenge at www.rorysdeathkiss.com Joppyhoppy 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it´s actually a challenge that will reveal something new or something like the rent-a-clown web page, in which nothing was revealed, in fact. When is this challenge supposed to end and when is this "prize" the page promises gpoing to... hummm... be "given" to the fans?Franshu 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

Can we put more detail in the Marketing section? There is some information regarding the marketing campaign by 42 Entertainment, but the information, as it stands today, is begging an update, missing information about the websites themselves, and references (such as 'Anticipation') which are insufficient at best. For example, searching for "Whysoserious" or "Why so serious" returns 0 applicable results, as with variations on "I believe in harvey dent too". These would be common searches for people looking for information about the movie's marketing and/or alternate reality games. For reference, es.wikipedia.org has more accurate information about the movie's viral marketing. Thebruce0 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean a more in-depth description of the website as it is seen by the user. The issue with adding such descriptions is that the information is not verifiable -- not able to be checked by other users -- down the road when the website's content is updated. Let me know if this is what you mean, because I'm not sure if there's any additional verifiable content about 42 Entertainment's marketing campaign out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant something about mentioning it, or something, but no idea.Franshu 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the spanish page doesn't particularly have more accurate information, but instead, more information overall. Included are the fact that a panel was held at Wizard World Chicago, and who was there (an that's about it), and a scene-by-scene, line-by-line of the teaser shown there. We've discussed such material, and added what consensus was found to add. I don't think our coverage lacks at all. ThuranX 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"whysoserious" was not created on Halloween '07. It was created before. I don't remember what it had first. (i only saw the website once before the rotting jack-o-lantern appeared). I am pretty sure it had something else before the jack (from long halloween) showed up. Then the jack was rotting for a couple of weeks (but only the jack's left side-wonder if that means anything?) as the jack was rotting, the candle inside was slowly melting away until halloween when the hunt began. could somebody update it with the correct info. (or maybe a page just on the viral marketing - i'm sure that there is enough info) p.s. i hope the dvd for TDK has a documentary on the viral marketing. Diego 10:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.60.42 (talk)

Why is this page constantly protected?

Because it seems to have been for a very long time. You might understand that for whatever failings Wikipedia might perpetuate it is a publicly open encyclopedia to be edited by all. Not just one to be adopted as a conceited vanguard by fanboys wanting to protect their precious little film. Le Gibbon 06:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about the editors. I actually just noticed that this article was semi-protected a couple of days ago and was wondering why it has been under protection for so long. I'll see what I can find out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted the admin who last protected the page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been unprotected as a result of the actions of this "fanboy". :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

German article

There is an article at the German site Kino.de (translated here). I've included the IMAX preview information, but I'm not sure what else would fit in the Wikipedia article for the time being. I don't want to enter a synthesis of the Premise section, which can become too interpretative. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This information is also at SHH. I think the white lenses thing should be mentioned as well.

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6436 Franshu 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was the next bit that I put in, actually, since we have a paragraph about the Batsuit. It's just the plot detail that concerns me -- at Spider-Man 3 before its release, we had a mish-mash of sources trying to represent the film's plot. Ultimately, we decided to stick with a simpler premise. There's plot detail at the article like Batman visiting Hong Kong and that the Joker's "birth" won't be shown, so they don't seem to fit at the moment. When the film comes out, it'll be clear why Batman visits Hong Kong, and I'm sure there'd be commentary about the filmmakers not showing how the Joker came to be, if this was really the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hong Kong information could be put in the production section, something like "The crew went to Hong Kong to film scenes where batman... blah blah blah". I don´t think it´s such a relevent information however. At least not for the moment. The joker information is definitely unimportant. Why would we mention something that is NOT going to be included?Franshu 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll see if film critics and audiences have a problem with it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.Franshu 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible new poster

When I added information about Mel Wesson from here (his official site), I noticed the teaser poster but wasn't sure about its authenticity. Comics2Film.com has brought up the issue, so I'd like to ask to make sure that this poster is authentic (via reliable sources) for replacing the promotional logo in the article. We've seen fake posters and fan art before, so let's have some confirmation about this latest possibility before actually adding it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it on the Superherohype.com boards, it's fan art. Alientraveller 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that poster awhile ago--at least a few weeks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks for the heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were fake, it´s still cool. Franshu 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's really pretty lame. Mcflytrap 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it. End of story.Franshu 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Knight/Archive_4&oldid=1137231140"