Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 8

Heads-up on including new information
As with any other article on Wikipedia, The Dark Knight should have a high standard of verifiability. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be a reliable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous -- the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

UK release date
I saw it advitised for the 24th? So i suggest it get's changed to the 24th on the wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulV15590 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The previews are 23rd, the official release date has been moved to 24th. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Aren't we holding off on the RT link until closer to the release? I see it's been added again but I didn't want to pull it without discussion. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm surprised there's no mention about it getting 100% 80.41.187.15 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer both questions, I don't think we should mention the score yet because there simply aren't enough reviews (15 currently) to provide an accurate score, statistically speaking. On the other hand, the Rotten Tomatoes external link is still useful for providing access to those reviews, as we only cite a few of them directly in the article. Steve  T • C 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, hold off. Only real big-time critics got to see it so far, so it's not exactly accurate yet.--Harvey &quot;Two-Face&quot; Dent (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The RT cite suggests otherwise. 24 reviews, and a nice spread of critics. Time to unveil the stats, I reckon. Some of the reviews in the article could perhaps do with replacing with ones from more mainstream critics too, for a fully fleshed-out reception section. I've been holding off doing the latter because I didn't want to tread on the toes of the article's main contributors; I've added virtually nothing to the article content and they might have different ideas on how to construct the section. But I'll go ahead and stick the RT statistics in for now. Steve  T • C 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek
Detailed interview with Christopher Nolan. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"See below"
"..as well as to the memory of technician Conway Wickliffe, who was killed during a car accident while preparing one of the film's stunts (see below)."

I clicked that "See Below" part, but didn't seem to be redirected anywhere that had anything to do with Conway. Shouldn't we fix this? --81.156.26.22 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me in both Firefox 3 and IE7. But there's no real reason for it; I'll reword accordingly. Steve  T • C 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Strange, clicking it works for me. It moves me down to the third paragraph in the "Filming" subsection.  If this does not work for me, it may be a matter of settings.  Perhaps we should remove "(see below)" entirely, since I added the coding with the opinion that the phrase was too vague for such a long article beneath it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you removed it; it should not have been in the article to begin with. Rarely, if ever, should "self-aware" (not sure how else to say it) phrases be used. For instance, if someone only printed the first page of an article and it said "see below", then it would not make much sense. It's just like saying "See this article" (where it links to another article.) Once it gets printed, it won't make much sense, and Wikipedia articles definitely appear in many, many different mediums and it should adapt to all of them. Gary King ( talk ) 19:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good reasoning. I suppose I implemented the coding because I didn't want to make a major edit during that particular time frame (an uncomfortable editing atmosphere).  Looks like the article does fine without it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we set it up so that earlier mention is itself the link to the later section? that would avoid the self-aware problem.ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, but it's probably unnecessary in the long run; I think both sections have enough context to work alone. But if other editors agree, I'll sway with the majority. Incidentally, would you mind chipping in your thoughts above? Thanks, Steve  T • C 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"future film"
Don't keep re adding the future film tag, it's been out since midnight two days ago. JayKeaton (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, no-one keeps re-adding anything. As far as I'm aware, you're the first to remove it. Steve  T • C 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New reviews
Thought you good folk would like a link to the WGN review of TDK, located here. I am unsure as to the rules about including video of broadcast, as the print version or transcript isn't available. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Course, there is this one, too. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the Dean Richards review to Reception. As the transcript of the boradcast wasn't available, I emailed Richards for a copy of the script script, checked it against the video (located here), and posted some points from it, using the cite video template (couldn't find one for a news broadcast). I've copied the transcript of the email (sans contact info) on a subpage here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article review
I propose an article review following the film's opening weekend so we can improve the format and the flow of the article. Since I imagine that the comprehensive nature of this article will possibly put it in the Good Article spotlight like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (both which Alientraveller was a key contributor -- nice job!). Considering that there is a bombardment of coverage for this film in the month of its release, it may be worth looking for recent sources. Not only could they have new information, they could also report older information, permitting us to consolidate citations (badly needed, with 120+ of them in the article). We could do some brainstorming and list points to address in the article, tackling the oft-mentioned ones. I think we can agree that this is going to be a pretty big film, and Wikipedia should have a solid article covering it. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've compiled some sources from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Reuters, and Sci Fi Wire. Feel free to utilize them. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth noting that Michael Caine created a backstory for his character. MTV reports this, but I'm pretty positive Caine has mentioned this a couple of times in other sources. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's in the first film's article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright... I guess the backstory seemed new to me. :) I guess we'll leave it to readers to visit the first film's article or the "Films" section of the character. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

American Cinematographer and ICG

 * Batman Looms Larger — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an incredibly useful article! There is a lot of content in there that could definitely serve as critical commentary to include screenshots. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to also check out the ICG article written for the Local 600. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New images
First of all, I would like to see about replacing the current image of the Joker, since what we are using is a very early image. Here are some alternatives: 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, to be able to show Batman, James Gordon, and Harvey Dent, American Cinematographer provides critical commentary: "One important scene on the roof of police headquarters provides a glimpse into the efficient and flexible mode of working that Nolan and Pfister maintained in spite of the sprawling size of the production. After putting their heads together about the best way to shoot several pages of dialogue involving Gordon, Batman and Dent, Nolan and Pfister decided to do the scene in a single circular Steadicam move, maximizing the Chicago skyline in the background. “In the story, these three men form a triumvirate, and it was very important to bind them together and show them in this massive environment,” says Nolan." This scene can be seen here and would be useful as a thematic shot instead of a technical shot (production design, art design, costume design). This photo could break up the wall of text in the "Cast and characters" section. What do you think? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 would be great for the make-up and effects stuff, about how he's not skin-bleached but made up, and #3 would be great for Ledger's interpretation or a plot photo. IMO, at least. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How would #3 fit with an interpretation? I was thinking that one Joker image would be enough, and it should be relatively clear.  Regarding "plot photos", I would actually discourage such usage.  Screenshots are permissible when accompanied by critical commentary (per this), so I think that they are pretty easily challenged by NFC enforcers if they are found in the Plot section without any secondary-source support.  I'm working up a draft for MOSFILM to suggest how non-free images could be implemented, so feel free to join the discussion there.  Are you OK with the "triumvirate" thematic shot, then? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think either the first two images would be good replacements for the Joker, the second being a little better than the first because it shows more of the degeneration of his make-up which was a part of what they were going for with the character. I'm always hesistant about pictures in the cast section, and basically dislike them in the plot because they rarely have real critical commentary in that section (i.e. they're probably better in some other section). I think we can go ahead and implement that pic of Batman, Dent and Gordon for the cast section, because it could use a little eye dressing. That, or find a really good quote for a quote box.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the "triumvirate" shot work better in the Cast section than anywhere else, though? We have focused on the new design of Batman and the design of the Joker in the "Design" section, so any images directly related to their costumed appearances would go there.  With Nolan expressing the intent to "bind them together", it seems that the "triumvirate" shot is as good as any to get a look at the "normal" Harvey Dent and James Gordon. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I was talking about when I said go ahead and use it. I think you could probably pass the critical commentary on it for use.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hah, I missed that addition... I think we can include it after a little rewrite of "Cast and characters" to indicate the "triumvirate" theme between Batman, Harvey Dent, and James Gordon. I put up some suggestions at /to do, so feel free to add or revise. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

semi protection
As crazy as it sounds, I think we should take it off. A lot of new people could be introduced to Wikipedia this weekend, here. If the vandalism gets too over the top, it can be reprotected. rootology ( T ) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be OK with this, since we should have enough eyes on this article to seek re-protection if the vandalism is overwhelming. Others' thoughts? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I love All the Crazy™. I even have Wikipedia: The Board Game. :P - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Erik. We can all watch and revert out the vandals and the worst of it. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny how the request has been there on WP:RPP for over seven hours. Gary King ( talk ) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sort of figured something would have come up. As the movie has been out now as well in the US for... well, people should be getting out of midnight shows in the next 30 minutes, can some admin reading this just unprotect? :) rootology  ( T ) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker Figure section
I removed this section, but forgot to explain why, and now its removal has been reverted. It is horribly written and is all original research with no citations whatsoever. I am going to remove it again, now that I have explained why. If you feel that it is an integral part of the article (which I say it most certainly is not) I suggest re-writing it and finding a few sources before reverting my edit. Thanks! 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be removed and only re-incorporated in some aspect of the "Marketing" section. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) Sorry, I just saw the mass blanking and reverted on instinct. I never saw the section before, and your comment just now made me go check it. I agree, it should be removed. It's completely unsourced, and would be better served as a minor blip in another section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, sorry I didn't explain myself in the first place. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry it took so long to realize that the section should not have been there in the first place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

worth mentioning
should it be worth mentioning the films 9.7 out of 10 out of 4500 votes on IMDB? According to the stats, 80 percent of people who reviewed that film gave it a 10 out of 10. It's the highest rating of any movie ever there, and once they use some formula ( i think they remove the top 100 votes and the bottom 100 votes or something like that) it's #4 on the voting for highest rated film, eclipsed only by The Godfather, the godfather part 2, and the Shawshank redemption. More info can be found here & here - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because we don't use IMDb polls. They are unreliable, as are most online poll voting systems.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and am in fact a little more draconian about it. I wou;d purge all voting until the movie has left theatres, so as to avoid having to constantly modify numbers. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, user ratings definitely should be excluded per WP:MOSFILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Heck, even Transformers was in the Top 250 at IMDb at one time... — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally concur. But if I ever get a film, you all have to vote for it (and put it in the article). --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel Section Moved/Merge
I have a suggestion that can we move the Batman (film series) section from the Series Article to this article? It would way easily accessible than just put it on a different page for people to hunt the info down instead of this one. Also the section is mainly referring to Nolans films than the other Batman films released. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be moved, but we could put a Further template somewhere... the question is, where? Perhaps at the end of "Production", with the mention of Bale being signed on for three films (though Nolan was only signed on for two)?  Then point to all the current reports? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree because When I was looking through the Templates below I couldn't find a link to it and u had to type in certain things in the Wiki Search Bar to get to it. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical release
I've found there to be a mistake here it says: 'and will be released on the following Friday, July 25, 2008 (BST), in the United Kingdom, at the Odeon Leicester Square and nationally, with "previews" on the previous day, Thursday, July 24, 2008.[110]'

I have an advance ticket for Wedensday the 23rd And from the promotion I've seen lately and what it says on Wiki it's self The date of the film coming out has moved forward to the 24th PaulV15590 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
I'm not against Trivia sections but they're subject to the same wiki rules. This one has no sources. I move to delete it or comment it out unless someone can add sources to it. I've added a sourcing template just above the section. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Joker
The character bio for this character seems more like a strange epitath for Heath Ledger. I would like to see a little more about the character, not the actor. Seanpnoot (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be because they aren't "character bios". The information present is based on an out-of-universe perspective, and it's also based on what information is available. We cannot invent information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, a lot of what we have is specifically about Ledger's approach to and interpretation of the Joker. Thus, he's prominently featured in that section. ThuranX (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The part detailing Ledger's preparation for the role needs to be at least reorganized; it's bordering on plagiarism from IMDb. Jamie1743 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jokingly" needs to modify Jack Nicholson's response to not being asked to reprise the role of the Joker in the "Cast and Characters" section. Even the citation includes "[he laughs]" after saying he's "furious." In its current state the article seems somewhat misleading to me, as I've always been under the impression that there were no hard feelings on his part about the role going to Ledger. --Ryanc33 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to change that but was unsure how.... (Yohowithrum (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Plot (plot details)
AM I the only one that notices that the plot does not make sense --Supermike (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No you're not...I've seen The Dark Knight, and aside from how good it is that plot summary is WAY oversimplified, ignores 3/4s of the movie and needs to be completely deleted and started again. Unfortunately, I can't remember enough of the movie to write a decent plot summary. But it definately needs work, as it does not do the Nolan script justice. I can appreciate it will be changed within the next few days though.--Dezza91 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the current plot/premise section is a hideous mess of bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as being totally devoid of paragraphs Greebowarrior (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored the previous premise for now. Since the film is commercially released tomorrow, its plot should be verifiable by a sufficient number of people for adequate peer review. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Australia has it already, doesn't it? So, while it may not be to English-speaking Earthicans, it is verifiable to Australian editors. Steve  T • C 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, you're right... I guess I have my eye on this Friday. Even so, I don't want to be spoiled by the Plot section, so hopefully one of the regulars can see it and maintain the section accordingly. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about "Batman speeds off to save Rachel" "Batman arrives and rescues Dent (but expecting Rachael)." Is this correct? I thought it was unclear in the movie if the Joker had switched the addresses, or if Batman had changed his mind and chosen to save Dent. Since the importance of saving Dent is a major theme of the movie, and since a switch by the Joker was never mentioned, I thought this was ambiguous. Anyone have any evidence one way or the other? --Camipco (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Batman was NOT expecting Rachel -- he tells Two-Face at the end that he had chosen him! Did the person who write this plot even watch the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.75.49 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have YOU seen the movie?? Ive seen it twice already and Batman WAS expecting Rachel, he makes that very clear before he takes off, only to find Dent at the address he was given by the Joker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly (and I hope I am), the Joker mentions that Dent was at 250 52nd Street while Rachel was at Avenue X. Batman mentions he is going to save Rachel, proceeds to where Rachel is supposed to be and instead finds Dent.  Later in the movie, Dent is holding Gordon's family hostage at 250 52nd street, which is where he said his family (meaning Rachel) died, and Gordon says that he was there when it happened.  So, Rachel was at 250 52nd Street and died there.  The Joker gave mixed addresses. --74.192.60.130 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Certain activities serve as plot devices to give the film it's very name. Clearly stated incidents of torture and intrusive surveillance should be included to give the casual reader a better understanding of the film. Incidents such as torture should clearly be presented for what they are -- especially when the opposing character is inviting the torture to reveal the morally dubious character of the Dark Knight. The Joker, for example, clearly wanted to be tortured by Batman because he was trying (successfully) to drag him down -- since he obviously was planning on giving the information up anyway as part of his plan. The whole movie is about the Joker trying to corrupt people and when a plot device is used for that purpose it should adequately be described so that the casual reader can understand the motivation. --Nihilozero (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's original research to include things specifically for the reason of trying to show the reader what the film is "about" in terms of its name. In other words, if you interpret the movie to be about one thing then you are saying we should include plot details to reflect that. The problem is, that's original research. We should only put in the plot section an overall summary of the movie, not list every plot detail that may or may not actually lend to an understanding of the film. If we need context for understanding the themes of the film, then that will be present in another section of the article, as it is not relevant to the "plot" section - which merely summarizes the events of the movie.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot issues (plot details)
"Batman speeds off to save Rachel while Gordon and the police head after Dent."

"Batman arrives and rescues Dent just as the building explodes, but the left side of Harvey's face is burned during the explosion. Gordon does not make it to Rachel in time, who is caught in the blast."

"As Dent threatens to kill Gordon's family to pay for the death of Rachel, Batman convinces him to judge him (Batman) for not saving Rachel."

This requires some serious clarification.71.170.13.9 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes... the Plot will have copyediting problems over the next few days as new or updated info rolls in. Gary King ( talk ) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is unclear? It's all rather straight forward. Unless you can provide a reasoning for why you think it needs clarification, just saying that doesn't really help us understand what is so confusing. The only thing I can see that needs clarification is the exploding buildings, and I added that the Joker detonates them so that it's clear that it wasn't a random moment that they went off.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The clarification is that the Joker switched the addresses on Batman.


 * What makes you think that the Joker switched addresses? I didn't see any evidence for that interpretation.  It seemed to me that it's more likely, and in-character, that Batman actually chose to go after (and save) Dent, and that his "Rachel!" dialogue was just a red herring by Nolan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.2.2 (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The film makes him think that. As in, the events of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.32.93 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That bit of information is miniscule. I've kept it anyway, but reworded it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong, Batman meant to save Rachel, not Dent. (Gordon: Who are you going after? Batman: Rachel. Gordon: Ok we'll get Dent) It doesnt get any clearer then that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.86.222 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite disagree; we are not explicitly told that and, as there seems to be dissent as to interpretation, we should likely not play the OR dicing game. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP's summary of the dialogue is correct. Joker switched the info, to mess with them more. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. There is no room for interpretation.  The movie tells us that Batman is going to go save Rachel:  Batman tells Gordon that he is going to save Rachel and Gordan then says he will go save Dent, its in the dialog.  If Batman suddenly decides en route that it would be better to save Dent, then Batman and Gordon would have showed up in the same place.  The Joker switched them, no doubt about it. Lawrencethomas3 (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's repeated use of torture and his elaborate use of invasive surveillance are key events and reveal the Dark Knight's dark side. These incidents ought to be mentionable in passing to create a more rounded understanding of the movie's motif. Just because Batman did something morally dubious should not make it unmentionable even if it is the character's fans who primarily edit the Batman pages. --Nihilozero (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I know this should really be placed in another section (definitely, another one), but can we start having Chicago Tribune movie reviews, as Comcast generally uses them in their quick sections about films, and are used very often in many other things as well. I'm sorry if it's strange to mention, but its been bugging me for a while and I just wanted to get it off of my chest. 67.175.101.88 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also they just gave it 4 stars, a rarity with the Tribune. 67.175.101.88 (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IMAX presentation
I don't know how reliably sourced these can be at the moment (at least from online sources), but having just returned from an IMAX screening, I thought I'd note some details for future article revision:


 * 1) When most feature films are presented in IMAX, the original format and aspect ratio are non-IMAX compatible, which usually means both a blowup and a cropping of sorts. This varies from film to film, but many crop to 1.85 or 1.66 in order to get closer to IMAX's 1.44 ratio. However, the fact that TDK used both 35mm and native IMAX formats created a dilemma for framing. In the case of the normal theatrical prints (35mm or digital), the IMAX frame was cropped to match the normal 2.39 frame. In the case of the IMAX print, however, the film has no consistent ratio - instead, the IMAX shots are shown in full IMAX format, while the rest of the film is presented in a wider ratio with the same horizontal length as IMAX, but less height than a full IMAX frame. (It looked closer to 1.85 than 2.39 to me, but I can't confirm it yet.)
 * 2) Shots and scenes in full IMAX:
 * Opening heist
 * Establishing shots, especially overhead helicopter shots
 * Lucius Fox's entrance to the Hong Kong building
 * The armored car chase
 * The Batpod racing to save Rachel/Dent
 * Montage after Rachel's death
 * All exteriors involving the Lamborghini/crash scene
 * The hospital explosion scene
 * Skyscraper fight (starting when the SWAT breaks in)
 * Ending montage

Hopefully this can eventually all be sourced and integrated into the text given some further research. The unique multi-ratio IMAX presentation is the first time I'm aware that's been done. It makes sense, though, because staying with one ratio consistently will either vertically crop the IMAX shots like the normal prints did (negating much of their impact) or severely horizontally crop almost half of the frame from the 35mm shots, destroying their framing. I was pleasantly surprised, I must admit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception
This section reads like a complete mishmash; there's no coherence tying it together. It also quotes the same four reviewers (Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy) almost incestuously. We're introduced to their opinions in the second paragraph, and then treated to them all over again in every paragraph thereafter. This section is badly in need of (1) more diversity among cited critics, (2) more concise summaries of their reviews, and (3) greater synthesis of their respective opinions.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reviewers are interwoven because otherwise it's going to be a listy setup of each reviewer's opinion, awkwardly collapsed into prose. Also, we can't synthesize. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There has to be some logical structure to the section (i.e., whether it be dealing with positive reviews first, then negative reviews, or something else); otherwise, it's all over the place. Also, there needs to be a broader range of critical opinions discussed.  Right now, instead of having a good idea of how the film has been received by the critical community at large, we're treated to a tedious cut and paste job from reviews by Travers, Denby, Gilchrist, and Levy.  It's as if there's a contest to see how many times the names of those four critics can be mentioned in the same section.  Other critics have reviewed the film and formed their own opinions.  We should hear them.  Finally, the cites and quotes need to be much more succinct.  The idea is to give a general idea of how the critic in question views the film, not to provide a play-by-play, detail-by-detail blow of his published review.  In the time it takes to read and make sense of this section, one could read the primary sources instead.-PassionoftheDamon (talk)


 * The structure I was attempting to go for, which I admit may not have been wholly successful, was firstly a paragraph discussing the script, themes and structure, then the acting/characters (which seem to have received the most column-inches in the reviews I've read, for obvious reasons), then the filmmaking craft in general, then a brief overview/conclusion from each reviewer. However, I'll see if I can weave in the review you added in a couple of places, using something other than the shorthand quotes. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do only what you think works. I'm not nearly inclined to make a big thing about one little review.  I just found the Unforgiven comparison elucidative. You've obviously put a lot of thought and work into this article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to disagree! I don't own anything on this page (indeed, the only section that can be said to have been written by me anyway is the reception section; others have put far more time and effort into the article). Steve  T • C 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the structure Steve intended, and I kind of like it, as it presents the reviews as they relate to various aspects, aspects noted in multiple reviews. Otherwise, you get a he said/he said across the board each time, with no close balancing for each section. If four of four quoted reviewers praise the plot, that should go together. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Erik says, while I wouldn't ordinarily have a problem with the review you're trying to add (the review itself, rather than the way it's been farmed for a couple of context-free quotes, that is), one of the other reasons I eliminated it is because I didn't want the section to become unbalanced in its praise for the film. However, this is, as all things are on Wikipedia, a work in progress, and I can't see the harm in a couple more reviewers in the section in place of one or more comments from the ones we have at present. Any more than that and we're in trouble: a section that's too long, or a section that's full of one-line appraisals with no depth. It's one of the reasons we provide the link to the film's Rotten Tomatoes page at the bottom of the article: it provides access to all the reviews we simply haven't the space to include. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I have to say that I think your fears about the section becoming unbalanced in its praise for the film are unfounded. The duty here is not to be "balanced" with respect to the positive and negative reviews of the film, but to provide a snapshot of how the film has generally been received.  If the film has been overwhelmingly positively received, as it has to this point (according to Metacritic, it's been given "universal acclaim"), then that's the picture we have to paint.  Of course, we shouldn't sweep the negative reviews under the rug (e.g., Edelstein's New York Magazine review and Denby's New Yorker review), but neither should we pretend, for the sake of "balance," that the film has been received, on the whole, ambivalently.  I don't agree with suppressing positive reviews for the sake of maintaining the pretense of a balance of opinion that does not actually exist.  However, I do wholeheartedly agree with your concerns about the growing length of this section.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Passion. Use caution with respect to editing your comments once they're posted as it may make the responses below confusing or the thread as a whole hard to follow. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of what balance of reviews to cite is only a recent one I've considered. Until recently, I favoured reception sections that reflected more or less the consensus of opinion towards the film. I wrote this early version of the Hancock critical reaction section with that in mind (and intending to add more, mostly negative reviews in the same manner). After concerns raised by another editor, and subsequent discussion on that article's talk page, it was decided to balance the reviews up a little more to present a neutral point of view, so I rewrote it in the style you've come across at this article. It still skews slightly towards the negative, intentionally, but presents a fairer picture. The episode actually led to a rewrite of the film style guideline on reception sections, for which there was a consensus in favour. But any further input on how we should do this will be appreciated both here and at WT:MOSFILM. However, I do agree that the current version of the Dark Knight reception section isn't quite as successful at coherently separating the various filmmaking disciplines as the Hancock one is. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby. And, I'm sorry, but speaking not specifically about this film but in general, Peter Travers is not a critic we should be using, when so many others are better and more insightful writers, like Anthony Lane at The New Yorker, A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Maitland McDonagh of, all places, TVGuide.com. Travers is the single biggest quote-whore whom publicists go to get some asinine quotes for their ads. Go to your local paper and see if I'm wrong. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And as I've just seen, by coincidence, McDonagh is the first review at | RottenTomatoes: The Dark Knight]. (And she's quite a tomato herself, I've just seen.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * really? Sexism's the best you can do for why we should include her? cause she's hot? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was an offhand comment playing off "tomato," for goodness' sake. And don't diss her if you haven't read her, or one of her several books.--151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like someone's a bitter failed film critic. That's all your POV. Perhaps it's the inverse, that his writing style's so easy to read that people like quoting him? And you're more than welcome to link to those other reviewers or just add the material your self. If you can type one paragraph here, you can type in the article too. So tired of seeing peopel bitch without trying to fix things when they claim to know how. ThuranX (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, Peter, stop. The Reception area is already very long, and I don't want to get in the middle of a bunch of Bat-fans. No, I'm not now nor have I ever been or wanted to be a film critic. But I've found that people attack the person when they can't really attack the argument. You know, "easy to read" isn't the point -- they're not quoting his "easy to read" negative reviews, because there hardly are any! Walter Monheit lives! (Spy magazine reference. Those who remember Spy will get it.) --151.205.29.44 (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything in there that's not trolling personal attacks on the rest of the editors here? ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call "Far too much of just two critics, Travers and Denby" a "trolling personal attack" unless you're Travers or Denby. And I have nothing against Denby. Travers is a joke to everyone in New York. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Monheit? Talk about puffery! --FilmFan69 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Jeez louise, could you folk be encouraged to pipe down? Thuran, youve been here well past long enough to know better how to react to people. That people have to keep mentioning this to you means one of two things: either you are are choosing to attack the same sorts of people, or the problem resides solely with you. Be civil or begone. Everyone else, stop baiting him simply because he's an easy target. Focus on the edits and not the editor. The problem I see with the current (as of this posting) review section is that Travers' name is at the beginning of every section. This seems to ascribe the most notable criticisms to him, which of course presents an undue weight problem. there are dozens of professional reviews for the film available, and neither Travers nor anyone else should be commanding top billing for more than one paragraph. I understand what Steve was trying to do, and its a good approach to address the points that all the reviewers tend to commonly note. However, varying when the reviewers are mentioned might remove the visual similarities that inspire the undue concerns. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should make a separate article for the reviews? --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's Dark Side (plot details)
The summary of the movie failed to mention the elaborate cellphone surveillance technique employed by Batman (which was used twice and and caused one character, Lucius Fox, a serious ethical dilemna). The summary also neglected to mention either instance of Batman's use of torture (which he used at least twice -- once on the mob boss whose legs he broke, and another time in the police station when he locked the door and "interrogated" The Joker). Failure to mention these things neglects key incidents which play into the very title of the film. Batman is a morally complex character and not a run-of-the-mill hero by normal standards. His vigilante tactics are not only questioned within the film, but ought to be mentioned here for a well-rounded look at the character. I suspect that fans of Batman edit this page and want to portray him unquestionably as a hero -- but fans do not have a neutral point of view in that regard. I find the same problem on the more comprehensive character page, but his actions in this particular movie should be mentionable even if they are less than heroic (but he does engage in questionable activities in the comic books and other media as well). --Nihilozero (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The cellphone bit is not relevant to the overall plot. Neither is the torture bit. It would be good for other sections, when talking about what Nolan was attempting to capture with the character but the plot section is supposed to summarize the film as a whole, not mention specific scene that YOU feel was influential to the character. It's unnecessary in the plot section. There seems to be the problem of people wanting to mention every scene that occurs, no matter if it's brief or not. "Torturing" the Joker (which, wasn't as much torture as he did to Maroni) and Maroni in the film are good things to mention when discussing the character's development in the film in other sections of the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've placed them back in, but trimmed what is being said.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you glossed over what happened. Batman blocked the door with a chair to proceed in beating the joker.  This was clearly torture (which was the Jokers goal) and that's why the police were shocked and trying to get in to the room.  Torture is a more apt description of what was happening since that's technically what it was and that's how the characters reacted to it.  By just noting that "he beat the Joker" you then fail to note the observable moral aspect that was present in the reaction of the characters.  By simply mentioning torture, you sum up what was happening more clearly and you don't need to mention the other characters' reaction.  As with the Maroni torture scene, this action is part of the character development and IS a plot device used to justify the very title of the film.   The cellphone surveillance was used twice with great visual effect and AGAIN... it was used to call the characters ethics and morality into question.  Lucius Fox stating his intention to quit his role as CEO is indicative of that fact.  But again... you don't need to mention that dialogue if you simply state what it was... an elaborate, morally dubious, and intrusive surveillance technique -- which again serves the very title of the film.  The simple facts of the events seem to sum up the situation better than vaguely noting that Batman tortured and used invasive surveillance techniques in some other section (which would probably just   end up getting removed by fans who don't want to face the reality of their heroes dark side). --Nihilozero (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you really want to be analytical, then I suggest getting references that mention these scenes and that analyze them. Then they can be put in their own "Analysis" section, which this article will surely need. Gary King ( talk ) 04:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the cellphone surveillance part should be added to the plot section. It is how Batman locates the Joker for the films finale. If anyone out there reads the actual comics, then they know how important that part of the movie is. Brother eye anyone? ~1WickedClown~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1WickedClown (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ARG Sites
Wondering if we should add all the confirmed Alternate reality game links to the Page on the Bottom or post all of the sites in the Marketing section or something like the Cloverfeild Article. I think they should be included to the article just for future reference. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather if we could find a specific website that lists all the ARG websites and link to that. Wikipedia is not a link farm, so I think it would be too much to list every website.  Do you know of any website that can do this and meet WP:EL criteria?  (Basically, let's not use a blog that lists them.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I Looked around. I think I found a blog site that gives a broad view of what sites are out there now BUT we are not going to use it lol. But I found another site that has some.

Possible Blog (Get a veiw of how much ARG sites are out there.
 * Most of the ARG Sites(Not Using)

Official Sources
 * Updates on The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing - New Gotham Times Released! New Gotham Times
 * The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing Gets Very Real Rent-a-clown and Why so Serious
 * New Joker Photo on WhySoSerious.com, RorysDeathKiss.com Launched RorysDeathKiss.com
 * Why The Dark Knight's Viral Marketing is Absolutely Brilliant A Few More Others

The Main Sites that should go on the article though seeing there is SOOO much:
 * 1) Why so Serious
 * 2) Rorys Death Kiss
 * 3) I Believe in Harvey Dent
 * 4) The Gotham Times
 * 5) Rent-a-Clown


 * --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting annoying as editors keep removing the Links when I added a tag that states "Please go to Talk" If the links cant go in the External Link area they should go in the marketing area of the article at least. One or the Other --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

casualties (plot details)
Is it possible someone could fit the mentioning of Joker specifically killing a judge, Loeb and seemingly taking out Gordon? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The killing of Loeb is mentioned; the judge is not previously mentioned in the plot section so she should not be mentioned as being killed. If Gordon's fake death were mentioned then more bits would have to be added about the whole plan in order to capture the Joker. Gary King ( talk ) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We aren't here to "dupe" the reader. Gordon didn't die, so we don't need to say "Gordon was killed" and then later "Gordon's death is revealed to be a fake so that they can capture the Joker". Succinctness.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting reviews
There needs to be a reevaluation of the reviews section. In the larger scheme of things, what MTV.com and WGN-TV think of the film is irrelevant compared to what major publications/reviewers like The New York Times, Time, Roger Ebert, and so on think of the movie. Also, in several instances only the authors of the reviews are mentioned in the prose, and it's unclear which publication they are writing for. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a good idea. I think these reviews were some of the first for the film, so a reevaluation is in order to use reviews from major publications. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, otherwise the section will soon be too big to handle. Gary King ( talk ) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman's use of an intrusive surveillance device
I think it should be mentioned in passing for a few reasons. The first is that it was used twice in the film, with the second form of it being shockingly advanced. The use of this technology not only illustrates Batman's technological capabilities, but it is a key moment where the Dark Knight's ethics are pointed out and directly challenged by another character. It seems to me that this film is called "The Dark Knight" precisely because of these ethical shortcomings and morally dubious activities (like torture). Failure to mention these things for what they are are does a disservice to the reader who may not know anything about the film. Like the first film in the reboot series (Batman Begins), this film is largely about questioning the activities of Batman. Should he be a vigilante? Should he torture people to gain information? Should he turn everyone's cell phone into a live microphone which can create a realtime image map of the city? These are the questions begged by the film and failure to adequately convey the activities leading to those questions makes the summary on this page entirely inadequate. --Nihilozero (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed above and it has been determined that it is not important enough to be mentioned. The movie is complex enough as it is, and I think the plot summarizes the film extremely well. We all have to remember that the point of this article is to provide an encyclopedic account of the film, not a plot that provides every detail. Gary King ( talk ) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an important part to the film, unlike the last film, this is showing Bruce using his skills and intellect to help locate the Joker.--1WickedClown (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

weekend box office
The 155 figure from a random WB exec, is technically only two days, not a full weekend yet, Sunday has not ended in North America yet. Should be corrected? Or wait for a better source?- chant  essy  16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really a three-day estimate. So it's a little misleading to call it a 'two-day' total. I would change it to reflect this for now, and put in the final figures on Monday or Tuesday. 12.183.126.18 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Slayer13


 * from Box Office Mojo: "http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm

"Studio estimates for the weekend are reported on Sunday mornings, generally between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Pacific Time and reflect estimated Friday and Saturday box office receipts plus a projection for Sunday." How about just remove it per WP:CRYSTAL and add the info on Monday? chant essy  16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to include it and say "estimated" for now, then update it with the actual tally. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, in response about WP:CRYSTAL, it's appropriate to report the figures per this: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." I think that the estimated weekend performance would fall in this category, seeing how it's been reported in the press.  It can be switched out by tomorrow. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Question
The Plot Summary says that the Joker switches Harvey and Rachel "unbeknowest" to Batman and Gordon. But in the movie they say (later) that they intentially chose to save Harvey (by sending Batman to save him) since he is "the best of us" - the triumvirate of Gordon, Batman and Dent. I don't recall anywhere in the film it being said or implied that the Joker lied about who was where. Can anyone back up this plot detail? --150.101.207.19 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Joker wanted Batman to save Dent but he knew he would rather save Rachel, which is why he switched the two. Then they realize he wanted to do that because Dent is the "best of them". Gary King ( talk ) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alfred = Father Figure
Just want to get consensus here.

References: Variety New York Observer Movie Net News

Alfred is indeed a father-figure to Bruce Wayne. Not just a butler as User:WesleyDodds has suggested. If there's consensus to remove I will, but it seems that there's ample evidence to include this description. --FilmFan69 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research
is adding the originally researched "References to other films" section to the article. I've removed it twice and I've warned him twice. I've reverted enough with this article, so please remove future additions and add further warnings uw-nor3 or uw-nor4. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No Cell Phones Allowed?
I heard that some movie theatres arn't allowing people bring in cell phones with them to the dark knight? I heard it on the radio but the only ref I could find was for a USC screening...can anyone prove this with a AMC or National Amusements movie theatre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.145.2 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of. Isn't this on a theater-by-theater basis rather than for only one film? Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I work for the Regal Entertainment Group (biggest theatre chain) and I haven't heard of a cellphone ban in place for this movie. It's probably a local thing for an independant chain. Aml830 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a really stupid idea. How much video can you capture even on the best of phones? I'm guessing not more than 10 minutes. And who'd really want to capture a video on a phone, anyway, with all the jiggling and the horrible sound? Not to mention that holding up a phone, with its bright lights, is not very discreet. --24.10.63.237 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this header was put in because the summary neglects to mention the cellphone surveillance technique which, along with torture, reveal Batman's dark side. This is a notable aspect of the film which is used in two different sequences.  It raised serious ethical questions for at least one of the characters (Lucius Fox) and should be included in the summary. --Nihilozero (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My phone can record for over 2 1/2 hours due to recording directly to my 1GB microSD card. Also, it can record in "self-portrait" mode, with the phone closed and projecting its recorded image to the external LCD (which possibly can be shut off as well).  If you can find a good place to mount it and check your angle, you could record a semi-decent quality bootleg with it.  So it is possible to do it with a cellphone.  --74.192.60.130 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In Raleigh: "Security was tight at the door, with a secret service-esque force (foreshadowing?) checking all bags for any recording equipment."  chant  essy  14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and GA Nomination
Do you think this article is up for a Good Article Nomination?

and also, the critical reception section is all completely positive reviews. I'm pretty sure there weren't ANY bad reviews for this film, but if there is a single one, it should be listed if it's by a credible source because it seems rather baised. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the reception section should be fleshed out a little more, but I don't think the article is ready for GA yet, purely due to the requirement for stability. As the film is released, more and more information is going to be added to it (plot, box office, more reviews and general criticism, awards). I'd wait until it's been out a little while before nominating. Steve  T • C 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking that we should rewrite the article in the sense of re-organizing the content to flow better. When we slowly build up an article, I think we tend to be painfully chronological and specific.  We could probably write a better overview, and we could probably find citations that cover more detail better (as it happens leading up to a film's release).  Let's definitely not rush into pursuing a GA nomination just yet. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about finding some of the notable quotes from the article, maybe from a critic, and make it stand out using the formula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeTheSpook (talk • contribs) 06:55, July 21, 2008
 * I would discourage that because I don't think it's easy to point out what quote is notable. It's difficult enough to choose what reviews would professionally criticize the film.  I would say that the only time to include a quote is if we had a retrospective quote that reflected how it was received.  For example, Fight Club (film) has a quote from 2001 about how the film was received in 1999.  It's too soon to have anything like that for this article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
This section needs work. Why do they read like advertisements for the film? "twisted, tortured, terrifying -- and terrific." "the Unforgiven of superhero movies." That's mainly from the New York Daily News one, but the others seem to be a bit too heavily quoted. We should be paraphrasing what they are saying, and focusing on their analysis of the film and not just their appraisal or disapproval. Generally, when you write about what they thought of the film analytically, their opinion of the film is clear. Listing the star rating...it's just extraneous information, especially if you're doing a good job of paraphrasing their opinion of the movie.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It does needs some work. I've been holding off on any major changes because I didn't want to step on your and the other regular contributors' toes (you might have different plans to what I normally come up with). But if you want me to have a quick punt at it, I could probably throw something together later. Steve  T • C 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was kind of my thing too, only, I didn't want to make any major changes until the film was released and we had enough reviews available to have a comprehensive section (that, and I wanted to see the film first). Maybe we should go ahead and clean it all up - better to have it straight now, then have more work later?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing that's bugging me is the repeated Peter Travers references. Is he the only respected reviewer? --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a run at the first real critics para in the reception. I pushed for balancing them, and avoiding repetition; tow talk about the frenetic pace, so I used one for that, and the other for the execution of the themes. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the section is a lot better than it was this morning (well, I would!), but it was a bit of a rush job so there's probably some bloat in the wording we can get rid of. What we need to be careful of, however, is recasting the sentences so they stray from the points the reviewers made. It's a fine line to walk. Steve  T • C 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take responsibility on splitting that one quote. As for the 'while', I really think it belongs in front. Not only does it indicate contrast in that para ,but it demonstrates and sets a goal of balance throughout the section, in keeping with NPOV. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weeelll, I still don't like that "while". It feels unnecessary. Read the whole sentence aloud; it's cumbersome without being split properly in two. Shorter sentences are better for clarity. But, consensus and all that, so if you two want it in, I'll not quibble over one word. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of writing styles, I think. If you can set it up so it's still tight and clearly contrasting, then make it two sentences. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look, but if there isn't a way, I'll leave it be. Incidentally, any particular reason we lost Ansen's "unyielding intensity... occasionally overwhelming" bit, leaving only his praise? Steve  T • C 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seemed to overlap with the other guy's talking about the fast pacing and such; maybe you could rearrange ot open with 'ansen agrees about the pace ,and blah blah blah' ? ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds OK, just wondering is all. Steve  T • C 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Peter Travers? Admittedly, had I been writing the section from scratch, I almost certainly wouldn't have chosen to cite him, but as he was already in the section when I rewrote it this afternoon (UK), I thought I might as well use what we had. Plus, I didn't want the previous contributors to the section to feel I was running roughshod over all their hard work by removing everything. Steve  T • C 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reduced him a bit to assuage the concerns of that editor, but i find nothign wrong with using him. I think that because the reception is written as story, then actors, then technical or whatever the categories, some repetition of names is needed. It's fine with me. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Travers is often one of the most quoted critics in movie advertisements. This can be a bad thing (http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2382). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.135.58 (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're on this, the section is written in the present tense. Now, I know NYScholar said that this is standard practise in works of criticism, but I (and I suspect most of us) generally do them in the past tense. I'm happy to leave it in the present tense, but I just thought I'd throw the question out there to gauge opinion. The only potential problem I can see is if one of the critics we cite reappraises the film at some point in the future, maybe when it's out on DVD, and comes to an altogether different conclusion as to the film's level of awesome. That reappraisal is ideal for our purposes, but might not work if we keep it all in the present tense, if you see what I mean. Ah well, maybe we should just cross that bridge when we come to it.. Steve T • C 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to put in a Canadian voice? Peter Howell is a movie critic from the Toronto Star which is the most highly circulated newspaper in Canada. Parallax Dragon T  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The critic/source doesn't have to be American (but it helps ;) to be credible or correct, and all neutral viewpoints are welcome, so by all means, add it in, but there just don't need to be an unlimited number of reviews or anything else in this article.cocoapropo (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

American Film
On Wikipedia, what is a film's country of origin based on exactly? The nationality of the majority of people working on the film, or the publisher, or what? I'm not saying it isn't an American film or anything, I'd just like to know. --Bloodloss (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The country of origin is based on the location of the production company, not the publisher. Jrtman (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the production company in this case? Warner Bros.? Why is the nationality of the directors/screenwriters/what have you not taken into account? Thanks. Bloodloss (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the production company is Warner Bros. Pictures. There is no reason to depend on the nationality of the filmmakers to determine the nationality of the film.  As you probably notice, the director is British, but it is clearly an American production.  In some cases, there is international collaboration.  I believe that the LOTR films' countries of origin are the US and New Zealand. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Is this a universal thing, or just something Wikipedia does (judging the nationality of a film on the production company)? Surely the nationality of the main people working on the film matters? Though granted, if it was based on this it would be fairly difficult to know what to call it, with a bunch of actors and whatnot from different countries. Bloodloss  06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're making it more debatable than it needs to be. A production company in one country can make the film in another country for purposes of the story or cheaper production.  For example, Valkyrie is an American film about a German story.  On the flip side, German director Oliver Hirschbiegel was hired for the American production The Invasion and Russian/Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov was hired for the American production Wanted.  For the most part, though, I would expect the nationality of the production company to usually match the nationality of the filmmakers.  It's just that when they differ, the company's nationality takes precedent as seen in the examples I mentioned. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA ready?
Are we sure about this? What is with nominating articles for GA status when they are still in theaters, especially only a week after release? I think, at the moment, this article has an issue with stability - as do most articles on newly released films. I would at least like to see a GAN wait until about the fourth or fifth week of release. Most of the hype is generally died down by then; superfans that want to bloat the plot section or add personal interpretations have moved on for the most part; we aren't disputing so many different aspects of the article (photo, plot section, review section, etc).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the article is ready for GAN. The only section that has been changing rapidly is Plot; beyond that, there haven't been sections that have major changes lately. I think that this article already surpasses GA; it would be a great candidate for FA in six months or so, especially after a DVD release. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that given the instability at Plot, we are NOT ready. Wait a month for the plot to settle, and then nominate it. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It might worth waiting a little bit longer for more time to sift through the press details (especially with regards to behind-the-scenes info), as well as box-office data and new records. Maybe a few more weeks? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the article has a lot of good content, but we should revisit the prose to make it more retrospective. Not to mention that there's definitely going to be more sources to implement.  See my proposal at article review.  I agree with ThuranX, too, that there is instability with the Plot section at the moment. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 11:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The critical reception section still needs to be overhauled. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LUCUS FOX's resignation...
When the Batman asked Fox to track the Joker using the sonar, Fox says "I will only help up to this point. After this, I will write my name for resignation."

At the end of the movie, while the Batman runs away and Gordon breaks the Bat-signal, Lucius Fox shutdowns the Applied Science Department's all computers and resigns.

I think we must include this part in the plot summary.

This part will become even more important if there's any sequel movie. -- <span style="font-family:'Lucidia Handwriting', cursive;">   Chul.Kwon / discuss / contributions    03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it wasn't that important to the overall plot. Second, what Fox said was that he would no longer help Bruce if Bruce continued to use the sonar machine, because he felt it was an invasion of privacy. Fortunately, Bruce probably knew this and set up the system to self-destruct when Fox plugged in his name (hence the part where Bruce literally tells Fox to put in his name when it is all done, and once he did that then the program destroyed itself).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Bignole; the plot summary covers it succinctly enough. There are a lot of elements in the film that could make a description of it more "complete", but we're aiming for the broad perspective of the story. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * concur with both editors above; it's pretty clear from Lucius' smirk when he inputs his name and the machines spark and explode that it was rigged to fry out when the job was done. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker's abilities
im new here to wikipedia so what i am about to say, im not sure if it should be listed on the Dark Knight's page but, shouldn't somewhere we mention that the Joker managed to beat down Batman during there two battles. in there first battle he dodged batman and kicked him like three times (while getting hit himself) but he still took Batman on. and there last confrontation, after Batamn got rid of the dogs, the Joker beat Batman so hard with his fists and a steel pipe and held him down. so the Joker can fight and took on Batman. so i was just wondering should we mention that here or on the Joker's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk • contribs) 14:50, July 21, 2008


 * I really don't think that these would be considered abilities. He's able to fight, but I don't know if that's truly worth noting here or on the Joker's Wikipedia article.  It's a little plot detail that does not really say much about the character. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there an expectation that he couldn't fight? What exactly is notable about this information in the context of an encyclopedia article on the film? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well i thought it might have been worth mentioning because most adaptations of the Joker cannot fight. and Heath ledger's Joker could hold his own even against Batman. but i dont know much bout wikipedia so that is why i am just 'speculating' we should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many versions can and do hold their own against him, others fight an d lose, others can't fight. It's not notable, because it chagnes as the stories need. Also, please use to sign your posts. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

but this Joker could fight like no other Joker we have seen. this Joker managed to beat Batman at the end and during their first fight it was bout even. i just think we should but i guess not. and i dont have an account here so i cant sign. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's really irrelevant. The Joker may have, in many versions, so experience fighting, but whether he wins or loses any given bout is a matter of plot, not of some inherent skill, remember, he's a fictional character, and bent to the writer's wishes. If you think it's notable, you'll need to find an article that talks about his fighting skills relative to the Batman's and the importance ofthe skills to the plot. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

im just saying i think we should mention that he could fight in the movie because most adaptations are portrayed as not being able to fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.20.126 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking about how the Dark Knight version of The Joker differs from other versions isn't really appropriate for this article; perhaps Joker's appearances in other media instead? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure it's really that relevant there, for the reasons stated above. IF the IP user can find a good citation for the writers and director needing his skills to include real fighting abilities, then it might be accpetable on the other media page, but without that, no. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't improve the article in any way, and no original research... rootology  ( T ) 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Supporting characters
I would like to trim and compress the supporting characters in the "Cast and characters" section. Any ideas about doing so, particularly at the "Sal" Maroni bullet and down? I am thinking about deleting the one paragraph at the end of the section with the exception of keeping mention of Senator Leahy. We could categorize the roles into "good guys" and "bad guys", though I'm open to other ways to organize it. Suggestions? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the trimming and compressing. Please review the change, and if there are any questions or suggestions, feel free to weigh in here. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Confirmed
Gary Oldman has confirmed that a game based on TDK is in works. So it should be mentioned in the article.

SOURCE: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/3466.html

Heres an article from IGN: http://comics.ign.com/articles/597/597033p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong Batman film-to-game adaptation in the second link. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IGN artical is about the Batman Begins game. It even mentions it moron. Look and read the artical before you post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We Need more Film Reviews
Jesus, this movie is 94% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and we give half the section to some nut job with vendettas against both realism and action movies. 72.161.253.11 (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to basing the weight of the reviews relative to this. The negative reviews, being the distinct minority, shouldn't be any more than 25% of the raw weight at most, for the sake of common sense. rootology  ( T ) 06:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the weight needs to be somewhat proportional to the actual response. That being said, it is useful for articles for all films (no matter how celebrated or hated) to discuss contrary opinions when they are held by noted and reliable sources. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but always with care given to not give them any undue weight. As the truly bad reviews appear to be a far minority, I'd say put them in the middle of the reception section, and keep the volume of negative/contrary views as small as they appear to be. The "final word" in that section also should not be a negative review, as casual readers may take that away as a conclusion, which would be false. rootology  ( T ) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no true or false - they're all opinions. Stating the general critical consensus and providing the RT and MC stats should be enough to ground the section in those regards. While I agree that one sentence of supportive comments and five paragraphs of negative comments would be disproportionate, I don't believe that the placement of either is relevant or sends a message/"final word". We should neither be advocating for nor inveighing against the film, no matter how heavily critical opinion is on either side. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, I understand the concern about giving whole paragraphs to one reviewer (the reception section certainly needs cleaning), but I've always liked the philosophy of fair and balanced. In other words, paraphrase an even numbered amount of pos. and neg. reviews (if possible, might not be), and let the percentage of approval speak for itself. I don't think it matters where the reviews go. Another of my favorites is balancing the paragraphs themselves. If one reviewer says he loved the acting and cites reasons why, and another reviewer says he hated the acting and cites reasons why...then it would go to say that they would be best placed together as competing opinions, than have all the positive stuff in one area and all the negative stuff in another.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; a much more succinct summary of my thoughts. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

#1 on IMDb's top 250
Is it worth mentioning in the article that The Dark Knight is ranked #1 on IMDb's top 250 movies?

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.165.116 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not yet, its only been out for two days. Wait for a while and see if it is still number one (I would guess it will drop a little.) Rhino131 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree; as much as I loved the film, it has a good chance of dropping. The people that watch the film first are generally the biggest fans, and then later on the more typical moviegoer will watch the film and perhaps rate it lower. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't list anything from IMDb, for a few reasons. One, IMDb is considered unreliable, and we don't use it as a source for anything (not even cast information any longer). Two, it's an online poll, which are notorious for vote stacking. Yeah, it can block an IP after one vote, but places that use proxy servers don't have an issue of one IP address, thus someone can easily vote more than once. Third, movies move up and down IMDb's Top 250 all the time. Most popular movies hit the top at some point and then move down. It's not like AFI's Top 100 Movies of 2000s, or something like that. Lastly, the community voting is limited to just that, that community of IMDb. Why are those people that frequent IMDb so special that we need to consider THEIR opinion? It's usually not that many votes when you compare it to how many probably saw the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is IMDb any less reliable than Wikipedia users at large? How do you quantify reliability? How would the theoretical vote stuffing work? Each registered user is given one vote per title. Non-registered users cannot vote. Each user's votes are stored in the profile for the user (preventing multiple votes from the same user), as well as tallied for the movie. Also, only frequent voters' votes are counted for Top 250 ranking purposes, and IMDb uses a (secret) algorithm to discard a certain percentage of votes at both extremes. The number of votes is also a mathematical factor in the ranking, so votes from infrequent voters would be even less likely to impact the ranking at this early point. All of these measures greatly minimize or prevent outright the kind of vote stuffing that you imply would happen. Furthermore, the opinion of IMDb voters is notable because IMDb is the world's largest online movie community. As cinema is a mass medium, the opinions of "regular guys" should be considered, not merely the elite subset of movie watchers called "critics," most of whom on Rotten Tomatoes are bloggers and non-professionals, or else employees of local TV stations who have little credibility or clout. The approximately 40 critics on Metacritic are hardly representative of national or international critical opinion. So what makes THESE PEOPLE so special? Rotten Tomatoes's Tomatometer scores for a movie also change all the time. WALL-E has vacillated between 96% and 97% over past three weeks. Box office is also not a very good indicator of public opinion. The Phantom Menace is popularly derided, but it made over $400M in its day. There must be some way for popular opinion to be noted in a section called "Reception," and IMDb, though skewed toward a certain demographic, is the best option that we have. You, sir, have no case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D17 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exclude all user ratings that are not of a bona fide nature, especially per WP:MOSFILM. Appropriate grading from the audience would come from a source like CinemaScore, which said audiences gave Hellboy II a "B" and Hancock a "B+".  The Dark Knight's ranking is clearly a result of vote stacking and demographic skew.  Even Transformers was once in IMDb's top 250, and that is ridiculous for any cinephile.  Let the numbers speak of the audiences' impression of the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 06:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We can still say this is the first time a movie has debuted at number one on IMDb. While movies do fall later, this has never happened since the year 2000. I am not sure if it happened before, but I did not know about IMDb before then. IMDb may not be reliable but it is a big site, the first stop for movie information on the net. Lof of people regularly check IMDb rating before seeing movies, and the rating are discussed a lot when talking about good movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukna (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It placed number one at IMDb because of vote stacking and demographic skew, so such a ranking is very artificial. Thus, its significance is exaggerated.  Let's keep an eye out for reliable sources, particularly major publications, to see how IMDb is covered, if at all. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMDb may not be reliable but - that's all that is relevant to this discussion. The quality of the information, not the quantity of users accessing it, is what is important. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMDb 250 is not a competition for comparing movies, it's basically a consensus displaying the list of movies that many established users who are actively voting on IMDb (have made at least 1000 votes?), unaffiliated with one another, each rated highly on. Also there were a few things wrong with the now deleted "fan reception" section. This is the second since The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) to unseat The Godfather. Also, Star Wars and The Shawshank Redemption have also had the top spot. That makes only 5 movies that have held the #1 rank.  chant  essy  00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes no difference. As the style guidelines indicate, they are suspect to vote stacking and demographic skew.  If you look at the user rating closely, it is disproportionately voted on by men of the age range 18-29.  This is not at all accurately representative of the film's reception among audiences.  If there is a bona fide poll like CinemaScore for this film (CS found out audiences gave Hellboy II a "B" and Hancock a "B+"), that would be appropriate. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the CinemaScore for The Dark Knight ("solid A") and have incorporated it into the article per WP:MOSFILM: "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why." This seems to be a fairer representation of the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So if IMDB is so unreliable, why is there a link to it at the top of the page, and why does almost every other film have it's IMDB ranking mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:EL, IMDb qualifies as one of the "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It has information directly from the film like the cast and the crew (only, if mostly, accurate post-release) and WGA credits.  In addition, feel free to link to the articles that mention a film's IMDb ranking.  We'd be happy to remove it. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's a poll, so why can't we state that it is #1 on the poll? If we can't we should go to every other films article and delete the portion that says it's IMDB rating and placement in the Top 250/Bottom 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * NO article should have those, since the IMDb polls can be too easily manipulated. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just easily manipulated, but they lack representation of the population of people that saw the film. The poll is restricted to those people that are on IMDb, AND did not necessarily see the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So why is it that all of a sudden when The Dark Knight makes #1 everyone starts criticizing IMDB, whenever it was any other movie like The Godfather nothing was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.0.134 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's more that there are thousands of film articles on Wikipedia and we cannot watch them all. That being said, many editors are not aware that we have policies and guidelines that dictate certain contents in articles. There are too many problems with IMDb's polls, let alone IMDb itself, for use to consider their information reliable. If you see IMDb polls on any other article, please be bold and remove it citing WP:MOSFILMS as your reason.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then how is Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic reliable if it's the staff who have no proven expertise judging other reviews, and may not know what the reviewer means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmagemp3 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)