Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015
please change Melinda McGraw as Barbara Jean-Gordon to Melinda McGraw as Barbara Kean-Gordon

Kaylor4life (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: We would need a reliable source that says the character's name is Barbara Kean-Gordon. I changed it to Barbara Gordon per this New York Times article with the full cast and character list.  If you can find a reliable source that says her name was Barbara Kean-Gordon in the movie please reactive this request. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015
Please edit "As copycats of Batman fights gangsters, Batman stops them and captures the fugitive Scarecrow." to "Batman prevents several copycats of him from fighting criminals, eventually capturing Scarecrow in the process." because of wording issues

Please edit "Dent criticize Gordon’s methods" to "Dent criticizes Gordon's methods." because of grammar issues

Please change "...rages over Dawes death" to "...rages over Dawes' death" because of grammar issues

Please change "currupted citizens" to "corrupted citizens" because of a spelling error

Please change "The Joker asks any of the ferries to blow the other up before midnight- otherwise he will explode them both" to "The Joker tells the passengers of both ferries that one ferry must blow up the other, or he will destroy both of them." because of quality issues

Please change "the kid's fate" to "the child's fate"

Tcp3059 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot
Someone please edit the plot. It currently looks like it was written by a first grader. Batman "suits up and stops the party-crashing". Seriously?! AreaJerm (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edited "plot".
Edited the plot section. With better language, it now compliments the wider coverage of the film. As this is a plot about the film, and Nolan have talked about how he dislikes seperating premis from plot, it now has a, for the lack of better words, visual poetry. It acknowledges the visual aspect of the plot, such as presenting day and night. Hope it is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforRight (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I share the concerns of the editors above. The repeated plot rewrites by are vastly inferior to the one that was passed at the GA review. Apart from the juvenile tone, these edits are also bloating the plot way beyond the 400–700 word count recommended by WP:FILMPLOT. The long-standing version of the plot covers all the pertinent details and this is just a clear-cut case of an editor indulging himself. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the edits by bothering. "Nine months after the events of the first film"? There is nothing in the film that suggest such a specific time line. There is no opening sign saying "Nine months ago Batman begun..." or anyting remotley so. Time is presented very abstract (as with all Nolan films) as the only words the script offers on the subject are the Joker's "a year ago... cops wouldn't dare cross any of you (mafia)." (Dark Knight script: http://list-english.ru/pdf/scripts/The_Dark_Knight.pdf) That could be interpreted as from the day Falcone got arrested or it could be any of the weeks following the end of Batman Begins. Even if I were to grant that The Dark Knight starts exactly nine months after the events of the first film (which I don't), that information is vastly irrelevant to the rest of the major plot of the film. We don't need to know that information to undertand the film, nor the reading of its plot. I say those words are waisted here. However, throwing in the Joker's action in Gotham city sets the precise tone of the film as a sequel, as it cuts right into the action.

The reason I, WforRight, started the plot with the Joker robbing a bank at midday in Gotham City is because that is how the plot starts. I defend that opening plot sentence with this:

"... we sort of set up this dynamic where, at the end of the last film and carrying into this film, Batman, as it were, rules the night and people are afraid of him - criminals know he's out there - so The Joker kind of owns the day... So the day, in a weird way becomes more threatening, you know, because you feel when you get into the night, you sort of feel like Batman's probably in pretty good control of things." - Nolan on opening the film at midday with the Joker. Furthermore, the sequel is all about jumping in to the action, as it were: "... taking on a sequel is quite liberating because you don't have to explain who people are, etc… With a sequel, you don't have to do any of that - you can just jump straight in and it's a very liberating narrative freedom to not have to build anything other than plot and we introduce The Joker just in that first sequence, that's it." - Nolan on Dark Knight plot. (Nolan interview with Empire, on Dark Knight; http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=763)

I wrote the plot with the film always in mind, and though I know my writings could be improved, it is always important to represent the plot as what it is in the film, and not as anything other. However, I might be alone on this and if it goes against any wikipedia suggestions, then that is a concern. 5 October 2015. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforRight (talk • contribs)

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse and The Dark Knight
I have found out that The Dark Knight somewhat relates to Fritz Lang's 1933 film The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, at least concerning the Joker and Mr. Mabuse, as screenwriter Jonathan Nolan had watched the film and mentioned it in relation to the 2008 Batman film. The information should be considered to be mentioned.

"Christopher Nolan made a few members of his crew watch the film while working on The Dark Knight... the impression [is] that The Testament of Dr. Mabuse was some thirties porto-Dark Knight... [The] film invariably stands head and shoulders over Nolan's best Batman film... There are enough similarities to make The Dark Knight retroactively feel lika a fever-dream aspriring to Fritz Lang's level." (http://sequart.org/magazine/58359/an-empire-of-crime-the-testament-of-dr-mabuse/)

"Indeed, The Dark Knight is Mr. Mabuse's spiritual successor. Like Mabuse, the Joker represents modern bogeys (namely terrorism)... he oversees dozens of deranged henchmen..." (http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/09/23/the-empire-of-crime-dr-mabuse-the-original-supervillain-2291177?lt_source=external,manual)

In Christopher Nolan's own words, the film is "essential research for anyone attempting to write a supervillain." (https://www.criterion.com/explore/191-christopher-nolan-s-top-10) He also remembers making Jonah (Jonathan) watch the film prior to writing the Joker... (http://www.empireonline.com/features/heath-ledger-joker)

I suggest putting the information in the second paragraph of the Development section that talks about Jonathan Nolan's influences for The Dark Knight screenplay. Somthing like this, I think would be in order; '... Nolan's brother and co-writer, Jonathan, suggested the Joker's first two appearances, published in the first issue of Batman (1940), as the crucial influences. The writer had also watched Frtiz lang's 1933 crime film The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, influencing the Joker's charactaristics from Dr. Mabuse. Christopher Nolan refered to Lang's film as "essential research for anyone attempting to wrtie a supervillain."'

These are my thoughs, anyway. Thanks for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforRight (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1st December 2015
The last sentence in the 1st para:

"The partnership proves effective, until the mob draw Batman into combat with stopping a criminal lunatic known as "the Joker" (Ledger) from unleashing a reign of chaos that would plunge Gotham City into becoming an anarchy."

This really is a bit of a mess grammatically (in bold), I would suggest replacing it with:

"The partnership proves effective, until the mob draws Batman into combat with a criminal lunatic known as "the Joker" (Ledger), whom he must stop from unleashing a reign of chaos that would plunge Gotham City into anarchy"

Thanks 5.68.12.120 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, good thing you spotted that. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015
It says "He Destroys a the hospital", when it should be "He Destroys the hospital"

67.83.60.230 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fixed. --M ASEM (t) 04:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on The Dark Knight (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060919201124/http://www.betterthanfudge.com:80/?p=925 to http://www.betterthanfudge.com/?p=925
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803041723/http://www.pinewoodgroup.com:80/gen/z_sys_infoProduction.aspx?intProductionId=1832 to http://www.pinewoodgroup.com/gen/z_sys_infoProduction.aspx?intProductionId=1832
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223174237/http://www.nbc5.com:80/news/14006347/detail.html to http://www.nbc5.com/news/14006347/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071107050252/http://news.ninemsn.com.au:80/article.aspx?id=317405 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=317405

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016
I wanted to add "Films about psychopaths" to the category list for the movie "The Dark Knight."

Justification: Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker is very much a psychopath. He has no remorse, is manipulative, cunning, intelligent, and evil on so many levels, going as far as turning the "White Knight" into a villain as well.

Noswanson1982 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your justification is original research. Please cite a reliable source instead. DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016
I wanted to ask for a grammar correction. The article says "Dent at shoots" when it should say "Dent shoots at". 67.8.227.76 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. Sock   ( tock talk)  03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on The Dark Knight (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070707174708/http://batman-dark-knight.moviechronicles.com/2007-06/a-round-up-so-far/ to http://batman-dark-knight.moviechronicles.com/2007-06/a-round-up-so-far/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070701165324/http://www.suntimes.com:80/entertainment/movies/109454,CST-FTR-Knight25.article to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/109454,CST-FTR-Knight25.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100218081413/http://online.wsj.com:80/public/article_print/SB121694247343482821.html to http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121694247343482821.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003103652/http://dvd.ign.com:80/articles/914/914260p1.html to http://dvd.ign.com/articles/914/914260p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218004608/http://www.news.com.au:80/entertainment/story/0,28383,24783986-7485,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,24783986-7485,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong info
The two cops that Kidnapped dent and Rachel, Dent killed the one who kidnapped him while the other one he sparred because his coin landed on the unscarred side, all Dent did to her was knock her out.

67.83.60.230 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical acclaim
It seems we have yet another editor attempting to add unsourced phrasing to the critical reception section of the article, by changing "positive reviews" to "critical acclaim". He first attempted this in July 2015, but was promptly reverted by. This was swiftly followed by another attempt (helpfully accompanied by an edit summary that it "doesn't need a source") which was reverted by me. It appeared as if this dispute had concluded, but TJD2 returned in September and reinstalled his edit, which unfortunately slipped through the net. Upon discovering this today I reverted him again, an edit which he yet again reverted on the basis that "There is adequate sourcing in place to put 'critical acclaim'. We have already come to an agreement on that."

This is fundamentally misguided in two respects: the claim is not actually sourced at all. Per WP:AGG, aggregators only survey a subset of available reviews and as such their findings do not indicate a critical consensus. We see this in practice time and time again when Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic arrive at different conclusions about the same film. When editors extrapolate an aggregator score or summary to the critical reception as a whole they are undertaking WP:Original research. Readers are quite capable of reading the aggregator metrics themselves; they don't need editors interpreting the data for them. If you really have to include Metacritic's "universal acclaim" summary then it should be clearly attributed to Metacritic in the context of Metacritic's metrics, and not used to "load" the introduction to the section. The second point is that there is no "agreement": it was discussed at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_13 where concludes that the discussion has resulted in "no consensus" to add the term. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

IMDB vote rigging
I wonder if there is any place in the article to touch on the IMDB vote-rigging controversy that occurred within a few months after the release of The Dark Knight. This isn't conspiracy-theorist stuff, but fact. IMDB actually suspended all voting on The Dark Knight - and, I believe The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption - until the dummy up-votes and down-votes could be cleaned. I found a couple of articles that touch on the subject...

http://www.manlymovie.net/2015/01/evidence-of-vote-rigging-on-the-imdb.html http://www.news.com.au/news/batman-fans-beat-godfather-with-rank-trick/story-fna7dq6e-1111117051308125.254.16.185 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016
Change this from Before he can, however, Dent announces that he is Batman. to Before he can, however, Dent announces that he is Batman. Rachel on learning this leaves with a letter addressed to Bruce asking him to give it to Bruce when appropriate. 183.87.88.126 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Which section is this text in? -- Dane 2007  talk 05:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017
"2008 superhero film directed, produced, and co-written by Christopher Nolan" should be changed to "2008 superhero film directed, co-produced, and co-written by Christopher Nolan" 220.247.252.237 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  10:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre
It seems strange to describe this as a "crime thriller" when it's plainly a superhero film, given that it features superheros and supervillains. Maybe "superhero crime thriller"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A83:B00:986E:6D7:A372:E354 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was changed three days ago. It is your prerogative to revert if you disagree. Since most superhero films are crime thrillers to a degree I think it would be redundnant to describe it as a superhero crime thriller. It is best to go with one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is best left at superhero film per WP:FILMLEAD. It is the genre under which the film is commonly known. The premise about crime is conveyed a little later in the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017
Category:BBC's 100 Films of the 21st Century Georgesonjohnfather (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Dark Knight (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1393457228470
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215110632/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3691&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3691&Itemid=99
 * Added tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/interviews/dk4.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029022951/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=53868&sid=15486249&con_type=3 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=53868&sid=15486249&con_type=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140516101633/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/entertainment/story.html?id=643de942-3feb-4cbf-b829-6d5aee0d0b30 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/entertainment/story.html?id=643de942-3feb-4cbf-b829-6d5aee0d0b30
 * Added tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1243828577186
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/11/christopher-nolan-remastering-dark-knight-trilogy-for-4k

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Creator Credits in infobox
Seems like there has been some argument made about having creator credits in the infobox. I've been going through the Batman film pages and adding Bill Finger's contribution to the "based on" credits. To keep with some consistency I'm going to add those credits to the infobox here. Other pages for films based on characters have this type of credit in their infobox, so I think it works in this case (see: Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) or Wonder Woman (2017 film) Friendly Lobotomy (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The credits in the infobox should reflect the film credits, and the film does not acknowledge Kane and Finger in this case. I am only speculating, but many writers have contributed to the Batman comics down the years which might be why Warner have left out Kane and Finger. Something like Sherlock Holmes is a much more cohesive intellectual property. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but Kane is credited in the film as the creator of Batman, so it would be accurate to add the credit for him - I'd also like to keep the Finger credit since it has come to light that he is also a creator of Batman and is now listed alongside in all Batman related properties. Most pages of comic book related films list the creators in the infobox. Even though many hands have passed over the character it is important to note the creators who conceived the original idea. Friendly Lobotomy (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The makers of the film made a conscious decision to not include Kane in the credits, if the hidden note is correct. Unless you can demonstrate that this is an error on their part and that his name would be included now then I don't see an argument for including him. Otherwise you are misrepresenting the film's credits by adding him. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This issue was also discussed previously at Talk:Batman_Begins/Archive_5. Pinging . Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The infobox is a reflection of the film's opening credits. We don't add or remove people because WE think it should be a particular way. When films contain multiple characters that have different creators, you are typically seeing the "Based on characters in X Comics". That's because it is too many to list in the opening credits, which is also true for the infobox. They are still credited in the end credits, just not the opening credits. In the case of Bill Finger and Bob Kane, I believe at one point, one of them was not actually getting credit because they were not deemed to be an actual creator of the character (there was a legal battle over it before they finally received the credit they deserved). That doesn't dictate what we put in an infobox, because nothing will change the film in that regard. It will always say what it says.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018
There should be a space in the first sentence of the plot between "bank, murdering"... 107.145.100.26 (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018
The article claims Lao works for "LSI Holdings", but links the real LSI Corporation. There's no suggestion that the real American company is anything to do with the criminally-operated Chinese company in the film, and so there should not be a wikilink to that effect. 87.114.75.0 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The dark knight in BBC top 100
Can we add The Dark Knight ranked as 33rd best movie of 21st century in BBC top 100. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also shall we remove this line in reception section. The Dark Knight is often considered to be one of the greatest films ever made. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Action sequences
Mostly the dark knight' action sequences received criticism, so shall we edit that? Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source verifying. DonQuixote (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019
There's an error in the following sentence:

"Gambol places a bounty is placed on the Joker" 190.210.140.33 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We live in a society listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect We live in a society. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 00:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020
Please change the following sentence, to make it more specific. The change is the addition of the specific edition of the Academy awards when the film got nominated, and a link to its wiki page. From : "The film received eight Academy Award nominations; it won the award for Best Sound Editing and Ledger was posthumously awarded Best Supporting Actor." To: "At the 81st Academy Awards, the film received eight Academy Award nominations; it won the award for Best Sound Editing and Ledger was posthumously awarded Best Supporting Actor." 184.150.237.222 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, although I trimmed your suggestion to remove "Academy Award". GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Legacy section
This sentence in the legacy section "Several critics have noted that later films imitated The Dark Knight's dark and gritty tone without replicating the quality of its writing, acting, or plot structure" takes the hollywood reporter source out of context and goes somewhat against what the source is saying. In addition, the sentence seems to act as if whether or not other films replicated the Dark Knight's quality of writing, acting, or plot structure is a measurable fact. Plus in the same hollywood report source, the author writes "And Zack Snyder’s Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, the film that comes closest to Nolan’s films in terms tackling the political and philosophical mire of today, was scorned, despite the fact that his depiction of the characters falls closer to the comics than any of Nolan’s Batman films, and offers a clear vision for these characters as opposed to imitation. While we so often refer to The Dark Knight as the best comic book adaptation, filmmakers and audiences have largely failed to learn from its creative lessons: comic book characters are malleable. They are able to be grounded or fantastic, able to be prestigious or pure blockbuster entertainment, to be dark and gritty or light, to be character-driven or action-packed, or any variation in-between." This contradicts much of the rest of the legacy paragraph on wikipedia. Pineapple4321 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020
Change the actor for Rachel Dawes to Katie Holmes instead of Maggie Gyllenhaal. Void Lard (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be correct – Thjarkur (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dark Knight (film) says: "Gyllenhaal took over the role from Katie Holmes, who played the part in Batman Begins". Katie Holmes is credited in Batman Begins. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Commentary and Themes and Analysis should be one section
Shouldn't commentary and themes and analysis be one section as the commentary is analyzing the film? Pineapple4321 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021
In the section "Reception": "as voted by the their readers". 109.175.155.97 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Already done The text already appears in the article as "as voted by their readers." RFZYNSPY (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please double check. I've checked the most recent version of the article, and it says "the their". I'm requesting that someone delete the word "the". 109.175.155.97 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Box Office
Is the box office at $1.004 billion or $1.038 billion. I think Box Office Mojo messed it up. It's $1.004 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.43.160 (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, check WP:BOXOFFICE for more information. El Millo (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Its 1.3 billion including DVD sales NIRrocks3456 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021
Nicksven (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Television
The Dark Knight first premiered on January 22, 2011 on TNT. It has since aired on HBO, AMC, and Paramount Network.


 * ❌. Is that really notable enough to be included in the article? And the other networks are not supported by the ref. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 13:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comic influence
Anyone know why there’s no mention of the heavy influence from Steve Engelhart’s Dark Detective II here? Loomborn (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that can back that up? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022
Please add the following template to the article:

2601:241:300:B610:7D07:2974:4F71:665E (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – This page has previously been nominated to be moved to The Dark Knight five times, the last of which was in 2013 (nine years ago). In practically all of those discussions, opponents cited WP:RECENTISM as a reason why the page could not be considered a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yet. It has now been 14 years since The Dark Knight release, and there should no longer be any doubt that this film is the primary topic of the term The Dark Knight and demonstrates long-term significance, especially considering its numerous accolades and significant cultural impact. The Dark Knight (film) is the most-viewed article on the Dark Knight disambiguation page, and virtually all Google News results for "The Dark Knight" pertain to the film and not the character. Readers who are searching for Batman's alias are also more likely to type in Dark Knight rather than The Dark Knight, and a simple hatnote linking to Batman should be sufficient to address any concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, among Batman uses, it is the primary topic and what people are clearly most likely looking for when they search "The Dark Knight". Among all other uses (Dark Knight) it is the only one that uses "The".--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per above – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support not only due to above but also because nearly all the links at Dark Knight disambiguation page are related to Batman anyway, so readers won't be thrown off. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 13:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The movie is the primary association with the term "The Dark Knight". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no benefit to readers, adds only problems for editors in the long run. As far as views, per OP's massviews link, Batman himself and The Dark Knight Rises get almost the same number individually, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this wildly fails the "more likely than all the other topics combined" guidance. Seems only like fans wanting a trophy primary. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated above, readers looking for Batman's alias would search Dark Knight, not The Dark Knight. If "the Dark Knight" was the character's name, the article would be located at "Dark Knight" per WP:THE. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it most definitely meets that criterion. If not per the viewcount, take a look at the Google News results I linked and The Dark Knight trove of accolades. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Beware that interpretation of Google WP:HITS is open to bias, especially when the algorithm can feed results based on your personal interests and preferences. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. I redid the search signed out, but got the same results. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Google can feed results based on IP, unique machine IDs, etc. But also is the issue of selection bias - is your use of Google News because it is a well-rounded source for usage measurement, or is the relative popularity on Google News why you used it? Why not use Google Scholar, Bing, New York Times search, etc.?  When I use your Google News link, the majority of responses are a mix of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.  I'd interpret that as a predominance of reference to the wider The Dark Knight trilogy (another strong contender for the primary), rather than the first film alone. All of this points to the dangers of personal bias flaws in using WP:HITS. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved third party here — here's what I found:
 * Google scholar — first ten pages showed a lot of references to The Dark Knight film, less than majority but definitely the most. There were quite a few references to some older Batman comics, and The Dark Knight Rises featured prominently. Also, a few comparisons of the second and third movie.
 * Bing — the first page is almost exclusively referencing the second film, with a few Dark Knight Rises references. Bing image search — A vast majority of pictures were box arts, posters or scenes from The Dark Knight. At the top, there was a vast majority of Dark Knight trilogy blu-ray discs and such being sold.
 * New York Times — again, majority were talking about the second film. Surprisingly, almost none talked about The Dark Knight Rises, though this may be due to the fact that it wasn't as newsworthy (someone died during the filming of The Dark Knight; the score was considered ineligible for an Academy award, then that decision was subsequently changed; etc.)
 * I would interpret this data as pointing to The Dark Knight film as being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 2ple (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, as a side note, Netoholic, (this is all my opnion, but) you seem almost personally invested in seeing the name stay the same.
 * This sentence — Well, Google can feed results based on IP, unique machine IDs — especially after InfiniteNexus already redid the search in a way that aimed to eliminate bias, seemed to say you distrust the validity of their research. Nexus seems to be acting in good faith, stop blatantly stating that their research is biased.
 * The same bias argument you make can be made against you.
 * I think you were trying to force Nexus to either do more research or create a no consensus situation, based on above. Getting someone to drop a good faith request for a simple name change by
 * telling them that their research is potentially biased,
 * highlighting a group of other places they could have and should have searched,
 * therefore giving them more work to do
 * and possibly deterring their drive to see the change happen
 * is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, or good faith editing. I did the research myself solely because of that.
 * Again, these are my opinions. 2ple (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to accept WP:ASPERSIONS from an account with less than 250 edits and what looks like participation in only one prior RM discussion. Evaluate whether you are "personally invested" in seeing this film promoted to a trophy primary position - prompting you to make comments about my motivations and projecting your preferential bias on your interpretation of search results. -- Netoholic @ 21:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am sorry if I offended you, Netoholic. Yes, I did kinda sorta accuse you of misbehavior. I am sorry for that, maybe that was out of line. However:
 * I'm not going to accept WP:ASPERSIONS from an account with less than 250 edits and what looks like participation in only one prior RM discussion — This sentence makes me mad. I did nothing wrong by stating an opinion (and clearly marking it as such). I did not accuse you of anything without evidence. But the part that gets me is less than 250 edits and what looks like participation in only one prior RM discussion — that was uncalled for. Belittling other users, least of all new users, by inserting your seniority is every kind of toxic. I'm not a vandal or a troll. I don't see how my inability to edit articles with the little blue lock makes my opinion any less valid.  I'm not as experienced as you, yes, but calling me out specifically because I'm new, and not stating how my newness changes anything, is out of line. That is one way to lose editors.
 * Evaluate whether you are "personally invested" in seeing this film promoted to a trophy primary position — I like the film, but that doesn't make me personally invested. I couldn't care less if the title has "(film)" in it or not, and the only reason anyone should is to conform with guidelines and the manual of style.
 * prompting you to make comments about my motivations — again, maybe that was uncalled for. I am sorry, but what's done is done. My bad.
 * projecting your preferential bias on your interpretation of search results — my research was unbiased. I simply stated facts. I did state how I interpreted that data, which in no way means that I am correct. The burden was on the plaintiffs (those advocating for the change) to bring the evidence. I was bored, so I, a neutral third party, did it instead. If you disagree with my research, disagree with it and do your own research. As I said, this sentence — Well, Google can feed results based on IP, unique machine IDs — especially after InfiniteNexus already redid the search in a way that aimed to eliminate bias, seemed to say you distrust the validity of their research. And now, you are very deliberately and intentionally stating that my edits are biased, with no evidence. I did give you plenty of reasons why I thought you were biased, but you directly accused me of being biased, with zero evidence to actually prove your point. That sounds a little like... well, I'm not going to make the obvious argument here. Second of all, I don't see how anything I said showed any bias. Finding bias in something without bias, especially something designed to avoid bias, is biased in itself. Conflating my opinion of what you said (not my opinion of you) with my simple Thursday afternoon research doesn't work. They aren't the same.
 * Again, sorry if anything I said offended you. We're all human. I simply wished to state an opinion. 2ple (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On the issue of potential bias, Google News is generally a good way to gauge the primary usage of a term used by reliable sources, which in turn can help detemine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's why I mentioned that as a piece of evidence, just as I have done so in previous RM discussions. There's a reason why Google News is included at Find sources alongside Google Scholar, NYT, etc. I believe 2ple's additional data adequately addresses your other concerns.
 * As for WP:HITS, that links to a section which talks about how hit counts cannot be used to demonstrate notability, so I'm not sure how that is relevant here. The rest of the page, which I am of course well aware of, generally refers to generic Google Search results rather than Google News results. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a good place to look for sources does not equate to being a good way to demonstrate primary topic status. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But... I used the places you outlined... and that's exactly how consensus has decided to do it...
 * WP:DPT clearly outlines how to determine primary topic status, by stating that there is no direct way to determine it: There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors. It goes on to list both Google News and Google Scholar as 'good tools' for determination. If Google News is considered reliable, then NYT is also, I would think.
 * And how exactly do you propose to determine primary topic status otherwise? I literally cannot think of a practical way to do so.
 * You're killing me, Smalls... 2ple (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Though Batman and The Dark Knight Rises approach the pageviews of The Dark Knight (film), neither is a perfect title match – Batman's sobriquet would be categorized under just Dark Knight per WP:THE, and The Dark Knight Rises contains an entire additional word in its title. I think there's a strong likelihood that the 2008 film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the specific phrase "The Dark Knight", which is sufficiently distinct from "Dark Knight" under WP:SMALLDETAILS. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The film is the clear primary topic for "The Dark Knight." The arguments against it fall flat. -- Vaulter  18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per ModernDayTrilobite. —El Millo (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Batman VI" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Batman VI and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC   678   02:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Box office total went up slightly
I remember it being $1.005 billion for a long time, now it's $1.006 billion. Was there a re-release I missed? Just curious. Shamus248 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you try clicking on the reference? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources are not reputable
I believe that the dark knights claims for greatest films of all times should be removed until Further evidence. Screenrants article is unsourced claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Click here for original discussion. I'm curious to see what others think.  Mike   Allen  20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The title of the discussion is sources are not reputable. Sources are reputable. So it's not off to a great start. It's a stance taken by some publications and it says "among" it doesn't try to sidestep it and say it's "one of" the greatest films ever made, it's also backed up by the accolades it received. While The Dark Knight Rises has only fallen in esteem with time because it's actually not very good, the Legacy section here is evidence of its long-standing influence. The two are not the same, and trying to draw this article into a discussion taking place on THe Dark Knight Rises is neither fair or warranted. "I'm losing the argument over here, gonna take you down with me" essentially. It can be removed from the lead, it shouldn't be removed from the legacy section because it is opinion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually this source is used in the article as well. No Dark Knight Rises, but Dark Knight on there, and there are multiple other mentions of the greatest of all time further in the section, they've just not all been hammered after the first mention in the section, so no it shouldn't be removed. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It only has audience polls sayings it’s the greatest but only one poll from critics. That’s it’s not enough and should be removed. The others say greatest action or American not “greatest film ever”. Jaszen (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Screen rant and time out magazine are not sufficient. One Hollywood reporter poll is hardly evidence that it’s regarded as one of the greatest movies all time using the same points I made on the dark knight rises page. Jaszen (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dark knight has only one accolade from the Hollywood reporter. There are no other sources that regard it. Jaszen (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that the same Hollywood Reporter that asked 2,120 industry professionals the same on you're dismissing? Or maybe the listings by professional film critics James Berardinelli and Barry Norman? There are undoubtedly other sources out there but it's not my job to find them. The Hollywood Reporter one alone would be sufficient but it's backed up by the Time one, and at least two individual notable critics I came across and while I don't actually think it's in the article, it's on Empire's 500 Greatest Films of all time as well, which The Dark Knight Rises is not. The two films are not comprrable and there is far more evidence TDK is one of the greatest than there ever was or will be for TDKR. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The dark knight rises is listed on empires 301 greatest of all time and the telegraph’s 100 greatest ever who’s a critic . That should be just a valuable then. Either they both should have it or neither using the sources available Jaszen (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so I'm done with this discussion, those two sources are not comparable to the THR's 2120 professionals+Time+Empire+individual critics I've found, especially as the 301 one is readers only as far as I'm aware, the Empire 500 is professionals and readers. Sucks for you over at TDKR, but take your discussion back there. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was argued over there that those sources are not enough by other editors not just me I’m using the same over here I don’t see what’s wrong Jaszen (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors on the other page told me to bring it over here and I did Jaszen (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The empire list should be thrown out. It’s used readers poll which is not reputable and individual critics are not enough based on the burden if proof used on the other page. The dark knight needs 3 sources and it only has one for THR. Jaszen (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Until enough sufficient sources are found the claim of greatest ever should be removed from this page Jaszen (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not remove the content again. There are at least 6 sources here saying it is true and you're obsessing over ScreenRant. Move on. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Being ranked among the greatest superhero or American/Hollywood films is not tautological with being one of the greatest outright—the qualifier is important. The claim is also sourced to a smattering of critics that also consider it to be the greatest films ever made, but this would seem to amount to mild WP:SYNTHESIS i.e. these critics are not saying it is considered one of the greatest films ever in a general sense, but rather putting forward their own view about the film. While all of the aforementioned are noteworthy and legitimate inclusions, there does appear to be a bit of a gap between what the sources say and what Wikipedia is saying. For a claim of this nature to be elevated to the lead I would expect the film to feature prominently on at least one notable critics or industry poll/survey, or to appear in a book about the greatest films ever made. When claims of this nature are made on Wikipedia the context needs to be clear. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So the greatest claim should be removed. As well as the one on the top of the page when you click the link it states dark knight is the greatest superhero movie not greatest movie all time Best films ever made right? Jaszen (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Betty, who are you replying to? The Hollywood Reporter is over 2000 professionals and it isn't American centric, neither is the Time Out one, that's already a substantial amount of critics before the additional sources. The best superhero sources are separate from the best of all time sources. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry DWB, I misinterpreted The Hollywood Reporter source (in my defense I though it was a poll of Hollywood films)., a poll of over 2,000 industry professionals seems like an authoritative survey to me. Do you have a specific problem with the claim based on this poll? I think the sample size is too small to consider the Time Out poll authoritative, but it essentially reinforces the Hollywood Reporter poll. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Hollywood reporter counts as 1 poll that is viable. But for a claim like greatest of all time there needs to be at least 2 more polls by critics showing it’s regarded rather than just one critics opinion. Time out is to small agreed. As of now the dark knight has 1 source in the Hollywood reporter. Until it gets 2 more polls like it from hundreds of critics the greatest claims should be removed the page . Jaszen (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? There's three polls of multiple critics referenced (Hollywood Reporter, BBC, Time Out) and two lists from prominent individual critics. Why does only the HR poll count? Barry Wom (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The bbc poll is for greatest American movies not all time. I think that’s an important distinction. Times out is one poll with 10 critics. For something to be regarded as one of the best ever  that is too small a sample size. Something like The Godfather which is regarded as one the best is on multiple polls with 100s of critics compared to the dark knight which as of now has only 1 Hollywood reporter Poll Jaszen (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the influence of American cinema and the significance of being in the top 100 films out of over a century of films, the Sight and Sound poll being cited to big up 2001 A Space Oddyssey, for example, has less than 500 filmmakers involved, but noone is questioning the validity of it or asking for a back up source. The Hollywood Reporter reference is significant on its own. Being ranked 57th means a substantial amount of those 2000+ industry pros voted for it or ranked it highly. The additional sources are just gravy for THR's mash. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Excluding the BBC poll, the Hollywood Reporter one is backed up by three further sources, even if those sources by themselves arguably carry insufficient weight. That's good enough as far as I'm concerned. Barry Wom (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Betty Logan I don’t think that’s enough to for the claim what say you? Jaszen (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to see how I approach claims of this nature a recent example would be Don't Look Now, which has featured in the last couple of editions of the Sight & Sound's directors poll, but I stop short of calling it one of the "greatest films of all-time" which I think generally should be reserved for evergreens like Citizen Kane and Casablanca and so on. So I think it is clear how I lean on issues of this nature—I prefer more cautious and reserved wording. Everyone is going to have a different take on this. For someone like me one prominent poll would be enough, but I look more for longevity. But this is my personal opinion, not a policy based rationale.
 * So what does policy have to say about this? First, the claim must be backed up a by a WP:Reliable source, and not WP:SYNTHESIS, which in my view is why we need a poll/survey rather than individual opinions from critics. Those would be reliable for the critic's own view, but not a claim of general nature. The second consideration is that the sourcing should carry enough WP:WEIGHT for the claim. The Hollywood Reporter poll is clearly a "gold standard" poll. It is supported by another survey (with a very small sample size) and a smattering of critics; is this enough to support the claim in the lead? Out of interest I referred to the They Shoot Pictures poll aggregator. It is a WP:SPS source so therefore not a reliable source for a general claim, but it is still a very useful arbiter for judging the prevalence of a film in polls and surveys. The Dark Knight makes the cut which reinforces the argument of those editors who would prefer to retain the claim in the lead. Personally I don't see a policy or consensus based reason for removing the claim. If you would prefer a wider range of opinions you could always drop a note at WT:FILM and request further input at this discussion, but I strongly suspect the result will be to retain the claim or "no consensus" (which would automatically result in retaining the claim). Betty Logan (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The hero Gotham needs
"Believing Dent is the hero the city needs, Batman takes the blame for his death..." — That's a rather obscure summary of the conversation that follows Dent's death. Suggested wording: "Gordon worries that by corrupting Dent the Joker has destroyed Gotham's future, and Batman offers to take the blame for his crimes. In a concluding montage Gordon praises Dent as a hero, Alfred burns Rachel's message to Wayne about her decision to marry Dent choosing Dent over him, and the police chase after Batman." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be excessively detailed. The current wording is concise enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's concise to the point of omitting context needed to make it intelligible. My suggested wording is 50 words vs. 66 there now. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All Batman says is that Gotham needs its true hero and he is going to take the blame for Dent's crimes. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? Someone who has not seen the film is not going to know what is meant by "Dent is the hero the city needs." It's meaningless without the context of Gordon's remarks just before that, and even sounds a little silly that he would say that, unprompted, immediately after killing Dent. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)