Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 4

Incorrect presumption in article.
​ In the article it is stated that the bomb presumably killes Batman, however in the movie it is revealed that the autopilot has been fixed by Bruce Wayne months earlier, I believe there should be some mention of this in the article.
 * There is. Not sure why you stopped reading the plot mid way, but keep on going and there it is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
Detonated is mispelt as detoanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.95.238 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012
The article needs to be edited to include a reference to the allusion (provided late in the movie) that Blake is Robin.

Bunnycoat (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is, it's in the cast section under the character.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers
I don't like that the article spoils Miranda Tate's dual identity or John Blake's full name. Something should be done about this.--173.23.148.98 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles can't be censored, or leave out information, to preserve spoilers. The onus is on the reader to not read something that could possible spoil anything. See WP:Spoiler for more information. drewmunn (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. As an encyclopedia, we are trying to cover each topic comprehensively. We expect the reader to want to read in depth about the topic, and thus we do not hold back. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Robin
Why is it just a "reference"? Blake has characteristics of three Robins, works alongside Batman to take down some thugs and gets called Robin before taking over the batcave, and Gordon-Levitt pretty much confirms it in interviews by saying he wanted to keep the identity a secret and gives a smile and a "it would be fun" when asked about a spin-off. Again, why just a "reference"? The character is the trilogy's version of Robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerfan2009 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the original research. Please cite a reliable source that can verify this. DonQuixote (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is calling it a reference to Robin not substantial enough JokerFan? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And why does the plotbloating continue with this, DWB? --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out Joseph Gordon-Levitt's interview with HollywoodReporter from a few days ago, not sure if I'm allowed to post links so just look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerfan2009 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This? The article does nothing at all to confirm anything else other than what is already listed. The writer says his name is Robin, but Levitt himself never says he's "Robin." By "spoiling the surprise," he could mean a number of things. Perhaps it was only intended to be an Easter egg. Maybe it means something more. There's no other source to say otherwise. QValintyne (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. It's been what, two months since the movie hit theaters? Why hasn't anyone denied it yet then? Everyone who saw the movie came out thinking Blake was Robin all along, if he wasn't Nolan's version of the character then why hasn't anyone, of all the interviews since the release(especially the linked one since the interviewer flat out asked him about the Robin part), dismissed it yet? Bale never wanted a sidekick, so Nolan was smart enough to give us Robin, while still not giving Batman a full time sidekick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.136.18 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. It has to be affirmed. The burden of proof is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Until someone can cite a source with Nolan saying, "Blake is my interpretation of DC's Robin character," this can only be considered original research. One can infer all they want, but inferences cannot be used as fact. QValintyne (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not an interview transcript. He may have asked him solely about the Robin name and reworded his article to make it fit his purpose (to make the DC Robin connection).

There is a big difference between:

Interviewer: Are you Robin from the DC universe? Interviewee: Yes and no. *laughs*

and...

Interviewer: How did you feel about keeping the secret about your character's name? Interviewee: Well, I like going into movies not knowing what's going to happen, so I didn't want to spoil it, so it wasn't that difficult.

I could easily reword the response given for each question to fit my agenda. It happens quite a bit in political articles. QValintyne (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been waiting patiently for something to come out, someone to once and for all confirm if this was Nolan's version of the comics and Joseph Gordon-Levitt would finally do so in his recent interview with David Letterman. September 17 2012 is the date, look it up it's on youtube, he wastes no time and spills it around the 2 minute mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerfan2009 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why no reply? I'm serious, he flat out confirmed that his character was Nolan's version of Robin -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25syGdFogA

At least connect his name in the cast to the Robin page, we don't want readers to be confused and think it was merely a nod now do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokerfan2009 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well actually, the quote is: "And he's, you know, a Christopher Nolan version of the Robin sidekick. He's not in tights and a cape, but he's helping Bruce Wayne and Batman the whole time."

The name itself is still a nod, my man. He's not literally one of the Robins from the typical Batman lore so it would be rather counterproductive to link a completely unrelated Robin to John Blake. QValintyne (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.

But according to Joseph Gordon-Levitt the character is Chris Nolan's take on Robin, and since Robin is such a legendary, important character I just don't feel it's right mentioning at least that Blake is an incarnation of the Robin character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.156.77 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the film, the Blake character is asked why he does not use his first name, Robin. Near the end I believe. --JTBX (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point being?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They were arguing if it was Robin or not I believe, I just wanted to point this out because I think it was missed. Thanks, --JTBX (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That his name is 'Robin' is unambiguous, per the film itself. We don't need to state more than that--though calling it WP:OR to suggest that the name 'Robin' could equally well have been 'Butch' and that any connection that that Robin is just a coincidence is really quite a stretch. This is the least original 'research imaginable. But the film doesn't draw any more detailed connection and neither do we. However, we do not need to pretend that this is an irrelevant accident unworthy of mention. JJL (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The name could have equally been Butch. Are you saying that if his name had been Butch the ending would have been different and he wouldn't inherit the cave? Exactly. It is not important to understanding the plot, its an item of fan service and that isn't what wikipedia articles are about.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The OR comes in the application of significance to the name. The idea that his name could be "Butch" means that if at the end of the film you learn that his real name is Butch John Blake, you wouldn't be bothered to add "Butch" to the final sentence of the plot section because you'd say it was insignificant. Thus, saying "his real name is Robin John Blake" is irrelevant to the plot as a whole.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the name had been 'Butch' then the ending would have made less sense. With the name being 'Robin' it did make considerable sense. It's essential to understanding the ending--and it relies on the widespread cultural knowledge of the significance of the name based on the previous Batman movies, the 1960s TV show, the comics, etc. Under the might-as-well-be-Butch theory, there's no closure. Certainly, it was relevant to discussion of a possible Robin spin-off. Failing to include the 'Robin' reference omits a considerable part of the story. It's factual that his name was revealed, near the very end, to be Robin, so there's no issue of WP:OR in including it. It's obviously relevant, including that his full name was only revealed at the very end. Failing to include it is failure to address the actual ending. JJL (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're seriously arguing that if his name had remained John Blake for the entirety of the film that you would have been all "wha? he's giving him the cave? After he learns his identity and works with him and all that? But his name is john blake! That doesn't make sense!". Your argument is the best kind of incorrect. Easily provably incorrect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * JJL, you're argument is based on the idea that everyone knows who Robin is. I can tell you right now, I had to explain to my g/f why I found the fact that his first name is "Robin" was funny. Yes, people who are aware of the comic history know what "Robin" means. But, here is the problem. You're making assumptions when it comes to "spin-offs" or "considerable part of the story" or even "there's no closure without it". By implying that those things happen, you are creating original research. Regardless, I find it difficult to see how a single name drop can be considered "considerable part of the story". If it was, then why did we not get it until the last 3 minutes of the film? Because it was an inside joke to comic book fans, that's why. "It's obviously relevant"....no, it's not "obviously relevant", because it isn't relevant at all outside of the comic book fandom. It plays no part in the overall plot (as the plot is not about John Blake taking over as Batman, or any other superhero for that matter). Here are the real questions you need to ask: "Does the reader suffer by not including this 1 second name drop?" and "How do they suffer?" If you can answer those without including personal opinion and personal assumption, then you might have an argument for inclusion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit stated that his name had been revealed to be 'Robin'. How could that be OR? You grant it happened. Yes, the typical reader is missing out on a large implied backstory if they read that plot summary and don't learn about the full name. To put in the summary that he was that Robin might be OR, but to put in that his name was 'Robin' is not, as it's verifiable in reliable sources. It isn't OR to argue on a talk page that a detail is relevant for reasons larger than the film itself. JJL (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The point you're missing is that attributing significance to the name is the OR part. We're not saying that the name is OR, merely the significance that you want to place on it is. So I'll ask again, "why is the name relevant?" You keep saying, "the reader will miss out on a large implied backstory". What "implied backstory"? Are you referring to the backstory that is Robin (comics)? If so, then you're putting your own significance to the name by saying that there is some "implied backstory". The name was a friendly nod to comic book fans. The average reader who knows nothing about the comic book character is not going to miss anything in the plot by not seeing "His full name is Robin John Blake". That's ridiculous to assume that they are somehow missing some major plot point that is itself only recognizable by comic book fans anyway. Even if that were true, you'll notice that "John Blake" actually links to "Robin in other media", and the character description in the cast section actually acknowledges that the film identifies his first name as "Robin" and states it's a reference to the comic book sidekick.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:OR to mention a factual item. It's a misreading of that policy to state that why someone argues that a verifiable item should be included is OR. It's not even a matter of WP:DUE since there's no competing theory as to whether or not his name is given as 'Robin'. It's a matter of editorial judgment what true material is relevant and important. I did notice it was mentioned later in the article but feel that the fact of its late reveal in the film is an important device, placed for a reason, and enhances the understanding of whythe ending was as it is. JJL (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let's break this down further because you don't seem to be understand my point. Yes, it is verifiable that his name is "Robin". Why does that need to be in the article? Not every verifiable fact about a film is worthy of mentioning. If the film itself does not make a big deal about it, then why are we making a big deal about it? You're interpretation of the film's final moments is just that, YOUR interpretation. You cannot push your agenda onto the plot summary. It's just a summary of the events, it's not there to push an agenda of "See, his name is Robin, and that's meant to be Batman's sidekick...". Again, if you didn't know who his sidekick was in the comics, you wouldn't be pushing to have the name in the plot section. You're pushing this from the agenda of "I know who it really is and readers should know that as well". That you putting significance on the event, not the film putting significance on it. Thus, from the surface viewing of the film it's merely a piece of dialogue that has no real meaning within the film itself. The meaning is an external meaning.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You're the one being ridiculous in acting like there is any other possible reason for including the name of Robin. The film was not designed to be watched by someone who had no idea about Batman. Stop pretending like it was. You are pretending to be NPOV so you can push your POV that the inclusion of the name is unimportant. It's trivial to find references to the guy being Robin and that being important. Heck, it's so obvious that the current Robin page lists the guy as a different version of Robin.
 * Policy wonking to get your point of view into the article is against the rules here. Stop doing it. Because of your insistence, I didn't even know Robin was in the movie--my sister had to tell me something that every source says is important because you don't think it was.— trlkly 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you complaining that you did not watch nor pay to watch the film and that your free source of information didn't provide you with the one single specific item of information you personally desired? FYI the article says that he is referenced as Robin, it says it in the cast section. The bitching here is that it doesn't say it in the plot, where it is not at all important to understanding of the film in the restrictive word limit, it is an out of universe fan wank nod that doesn't change the film unless earlier in the film a prophecy was made about someone called Robin. So do not complain that you did not know, that you were forbade from the knowledge, that it was withheld, because that is an outright lie, the information is here. You just didn't want to pay to see the film, read only the plot and are now complaining that you didn't read the rest of the article. That sounds like a you problem. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only a Wikipedia article. You're taking things a bit too seriously here. Can you not imagine the possibility of a good-faith disagreement over whether or not this fact should be mentioned? JJL (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, the plot summary is the least important part of a wikipedia article. Anything, such as character background, is mentioned in the appropriate section of the article in an out-of-universe prose. DonQuixote (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a character fact, not background. Are we to pretend it was put in for no reason at all? JJL (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...the background of a character deals with facts about the character. Putting the above fact into the section dealing with the character background is noting that there was a reason that it was put into the movie. Again, the plot summary is the least important part of the article. The important parts of the article are the other sections which deal with character background, production, casting, critical analysis, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by downplaying its importance. It would seem if this were so then ther would be no objection to adding this fact. JJL (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The plot summary isn't the article, and as such it doesn't need to contain every detail. The other sections are more important to the article, and such details as, his first name is Robin, are more appropriate for those other sections. DonQuixote (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We disagree about that, and I don't see a policy that settles the matter either way. The detail of his name, and its late reveal, is significant to the plot and should be included--the ending makes much more sense with it. The movie is interpretable without it but much more meaningful with it. JJL (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that not every verifiable fact about a film is worthy of mentioning. This fact has generated much discussion in WP:RS, though. You are taking an extremely reductionist point of view and also privileging your personal judgment about what the film is "putting significance on". I'd say just the opposite: In hiding that info. for so long, then creating an interaction designed to make this a dramatic reveal shortly before we see its relevance as R.J. Blake enters the Batcave, says to me that it was viewed as quite significant by the director. Why are you arguing so strongly against one verifiable true phrase being (re-)added to one sentence of the article? JJL (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jonah Nolan says it's "a wink" at the audience. Which I take to mean it's a step higher than an easter egg in that it's not hidden. Easyjusteasy (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a source ( http://screencrave.com/2012-10-15/the-dark-knight-rises-slightly-clarified-jonathan-nolan/ ). I can't believe this argument has lasted this long, to be honest. QValintyne (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds relevant to me. JJL (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? He says it's "a wink". Not, "it's an important element". Last time I checked, "a wink" means that it's an inside joke. That does not make it important or relevant. It also becomes this random nugget of detail when reading the plot (John's first name is revealed to be Robin). Again, if you don't know who "Robin" is, then the joke is lost on you and if you do know who Robin is thn the fact that it is revealed in the cast section is sufficient.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, "wink", fan wank, call it waht you want it backs up what Nole and I have been saying. Hint, they wouldn't call the Terminator being lowered into the hot metal a "wink" to the audience. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nole 100%. The detail is revealed in the cast section, so there's really no need to mention it in the plot summary. His name is in no way relevant to the plot. QValintyne (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am late in this discussion, but I think the fact that Blake's legal first name is revealed to be Robin is an extremely important plot point. I see nothing wrong with adding this in a line in the plot summary. And I don't see why people keep opposing this. The point about this name is deemed important enough to be included in several reviews and commentaries on the movie, so that itself makes it notable enough to be included. Aurorion (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point I think the underlying problem is WP:OWN. The last edit re-inserted "inherits" the Batcave which is less clear than that he received a GPS device. The plot description is being steadfastly defended. JJL (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting (spoilery) side note to this conversation: in the Skyfall plot section, a similarly worded final line from Eve reveals her to be Miss Moneypenny. However, this is noted in the plot section, unlike here. In the case of Bond, it fits into further continuity as far as future films, as she is an established character. What do you think about its inclusion in that article? drewmunn (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited it to be less plot-twisty. You're right, she is an established character and official sources point out that fact, so we should just skip the mention of the one-liner and state that she is Eve Moneypenny from line one. DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that your edit to the Skyfall article has been reverted by a contributor to this conversation. I agreed with your edit, but I don't feel strongly enough that I am correct in my assumptions to undo the edit. Instead, I'm going to copy over this bit of the conversation to the Skyfall talk and link to the rest. drewmunn (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't really appreciate that spoiler the day after the movie opens. JJL (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy dictates that we cannot censor or leave out information to preserve spoilers. The onus is on the reader not to read something that may spoil their enjoyment of other media. drewmunn (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have known better than to read a page on Batman in order to avoid info. on James Bond? Well, you make a compelling argument...though the policy is about censoring articles and isn't intended to encourage people to spoil things on irrelevant and unrelated talk pages. In any event, my point was that he was being inconsiderate, not that he was violating policy. JJL (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I both read your comment wrong, and added the information. :-( It'd been out for some time in the UK, and I didn't even think about international openers. I've added an informal spoiler notice to my first comment on this matter for the moment, as it's still a cause for ongoing argument over at the Skyfall talk. I'm not going to censor here at the moment, specifically because the input from people from this article has been fairly useful. Sorry again. drewmunn (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree that at this point the discussion of that here has been relevant to the topic at hand here. JJL (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll chip in my Penny's worth. Like the Moneypenny reference in Skyfall it is important to point out the name of the "sidekick" character. Lets face it, if it wasn't important, then Nolan wouldn't have put it in. It is not OR to to quote the film. We don't have to put a link to the Robin Comics Characterbut maybe to the "In other Media" section that someone mentioned earlier. The fact that people who watch the film when hearing his name come out with a nice smile on their face at the nod the character isn't OR. Nolan was giving fans who had been asking from the first film "Will you be putting Robin in a film" a titbit to get them happy. MisterShiney   ✉    08:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's about what's important to the summary of the plot of the film. Knowing that his "legal" name is Robin is not, because it's an inside joke to fans of the character. We know this was just an inside joke because it's been stated so by Jonathan Nolan and JGL. It wasn't intended to be more than that. With Moneypenny, that's borderline, because that's not a code name or alias for the character in the series, that's just always been her name. None of the Robins have ever been called "Robin" for their actual name. Thus, we're pointing out a joke that is only relevant to people that know who the charater is, as well as applying a significance to that fact that is otherwise not indicated in the film itself (the OR part comes to us applying a significance to the name solely because we know who "Robin" is in the comics). Additionally, in Skyfall, we're talking about naming a character that has no name until the end of the film. A character who Bond interacted with quite a bit (especially in the beginning); thus, we are naming someone for the first time. Here, we have a name the whole time, but at the end we get our inside joke with his first name being "Robin". That's not relevant to the film itself, only to fans who know who that is. To none fans, the name "John Blake" is actually linked to 'Robin in other media' so that should they click on it they can get the extra info.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, having a link to Robin in other media and a nice middle ground. MisterShiney   ✉    13:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and if you were looking for a reference that says that Blake was Batman's protege look no further than here. MisterShiney   ✉    14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen that page. It's the writer's interpretation, not the filmmaker's intent. There's another one, with an interview with Jonathan Nolan, where he says it's basically a wink at the fanbase and nothing more.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact it doesn't say "...and nothing more" . That's your interpretation. It seems significant to me, and it's factual--I'm still inclined to put in in the Plot section. There seems to be much support for the idea, judging by all the edits. JJL (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you put in the plot? That there is a wink to the character of Robin? That has no business being in that section, because it's not relevant to the summary of the events in the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an event in the film. Is there any possibility of there being an informed, good-faith disagreement about its degree of relevance? JJL (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't challenge your good-faith intentions behind wanting to include it, so please allow me to express mine when it comes to not including it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said "You cannot push your agenda onto the plot summary". In any event, a comment like "That has no business being in that section, because it's not relevant to the summary of the events in the film" reads more like it's intended as an objective statement of fact rather than an opinion--that's what I was referring to. JJL (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hero/Superhero
"The Dark Knight Rises is a 2012 superhero film....". Sorry if this is old hat but Batman is not a superhero, as most fans of the genre understand. Straightseer (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The genre of the film is still classified as that. I get that you're arguing that the character himself is not a "superhero", and thus the film cannot be a "superhero film". From my understanding, Batman has always been classified as a "superhero", given that said qualifier does NOT require actual superpowers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't say it bothers me per se—I would have personally classed it as a superhero film too—but for what it's worth both Allmovie and the NYtimes classify its genre as action/crime. Even though it's not RS, IMDB also labels it as action/crime too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is one of the reasons why I don't like using genre's in the lead. Film's today fall under so many different genres, and it's a mouthful to read in a sentence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

i thought the genre of this movie was renamed to "comic book movies" Netflix uses that name, and i heard news programs calling any movie based on comic books that as well, it only non-comic book movies that have superheroes in it are the "superhero movie" genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.195.254 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets face it...with the stunts he pulls off and he can still walk...he was to be part kryptonite atleast! lol. MisterShiney   ✉    07:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Development
An explicit mentioning to Charles Dickens novel "A Tale of Two Cities" (with the corresponding link to the wiki article of the novel) would be tremendously enriching for casual readers on the Development section.

current post: "Chris Nolan said that his brother's original draft was about 400 pages."

proposed edit: "Chris Nolan said that his brother's original draft was about 400 pages and that he drew a lot of influence from Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities."

The reference at the end of the current statement [#69] already supports the proposed change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwalt (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that some mention should be made of this fact. However, I think that an alternative wording would be better. Your current wording suggest that later drafts did not draw influence from ATOTC, which they did. Perhaps other editors could suggest a position within the article (I do like your position, but it may equally fit elsewhere), and an alternate wording? Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical response
The article almost completely leaves out all the negative reception. Many movie critics think it is a completely horrible movie. Yes, Rotten Tomatoes gave it that good score, and critics have praised it. Other critics have also called it a horrible film, not that this article addresses that side of the critical response.

It is completely biased and one-sided as it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.204.116 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently information on negative reviews included in the article. I draw your attention especially to the last few paragraphs of the critical reaction section, where this is discussed. However, we only include specific reviews from reputable sources; we don't list every comment ever written on a blog. If you can provide reputable citations, then you could add further information to the article. However, as mention is already made, and the balance between positive and negative is around the correct percentage, I don't think any addition is necessary. drewmunn (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the same article I am? It goes on and on and on like "The Telegraph granted the film a maximum score of five stars", with what must be 10-20 examples of perfect to near perfect scores. The biggest mention of any critics that disagree is in stating that fans threatened violence against them. In the end we have two sentences that do not give a score but are critical of the films quality, and what is about 10-15 times as much with more details for the ones that are unashamedly praising it as a complete and utter masterpiece. There are some reviews that paint it as one of the worst films of the decade like the respected reviewer the New York Observer who gave it 1/4 for graphics and sounds and called that a "stretch", making it seem like .5 or even 0 would of possibly been a better score. In the end the overall impression from reading this section is not at all what you would get if you were to say read every review from Metacritics. Which is that a lot of reviewers gave it 100% and praised it like it was the best film ever made, others clearly through it was one of the absolute worst. It is a somewhat unique and very interesting situation.--Wisnoskij (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the critics went on a stampede here. I went to Time Out, which used to have very sophisticated reviews, but was chagrined to find that it gave The Dark Knight Rises a positive review. Obviously this is a terrible film, but if most critics refuse to admit that, there's not much Wikipedia can do. In ten or twenty years, more people will be able to see this film for what it is, and then, the Wikipedia article about it will be more sensible. – Herzen (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Wiki should be more sensitive right from the start, as it looks like Wiki is doing advertisement job for free. Afterall, this is a megabuck bussiness. Of course, there is nothing unique in this situation. In ten or 20 years movie already will be forgotten and critics rarely turns back to fix what they wrote about one day megabuck hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.102.96 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First name or last name?
Editors,

I have a bit of problem deciding which names to use, first or last. For now, it seems that different editors call each character differently, some by first name, some by last. Who should be called by which? I assume that the characters we know more intimately, like Bruce and Alfred can be called by first name? What about the rest?

Drewmunn/Sonicscrewdriver mentioned MOS, but he said it was supposed to be used in biography articles. So... who should be called by which? Anthonydraco (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. "We" may know some characters like Bruce Wayne "more intimately", but I think the article should assume that most people don't. Aurorion (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's convention to use a character's full name when first mentioning them in the article (e.g. in the plot summary) and then first name thereafter, unless the last name usage is more common. If an editor here wants to use context more specifically, I say go for it -- for example, since Alfred calls Bruce "Mr. Wayne" then a sentence which refers to them both could use that. Just my 2c. El duderino (abides) 05:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal:List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters
Editors, I am proposing a new article dedicating for the characters of The Dark Knight Trilogy, List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters. The reason is, after seeing other franchises like Terminator and A Nightmare on Elm Street own lists of characters page, lead me to think that this series should have one as well. Not to mention, that the list could have a section dedicated to John Blake, instead of summarized him in Robin in other media--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A good idea. But it wouldnt have a place here. But if there was an article on the Nolan Batman Film series then it would have a place there. MisterShiney    ✉    21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User NeoBatfreak then posted:

Nationality
Hi all, I would like to know what the country of origin of, Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan. UK or U.S.? or both? I think it's the U.S., as no matter the director or the producer to determine the origin of the movie, because is who company produces the movie (DC Comics, Legendary Pictures)  is Warner (American) then I think it would be American nationality, rather than American-British. MervinVillarreal (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 1 and several sections of Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 2 are relevant here. Generally speaking when something subjective and of minimal importance is being disputed, it's best to avoid using it at all. GRAPPLE   X  23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be both. UK companies were also involved in Production/Distribution (despite how little it may seem) it would be amiss to not include it within the article. MisterShiney    ✉    09:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

so? I would like to revive the issue for the nationality, eventually all agree that it is an American film and need should be put at the beginning of the article.MervinVillarreal (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But we don't all agree on that, as has plainly been demonstrated. GRAPPLE   X  17:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And as such we have settled for not including a nationality and just having it in the Info box where is appropriate. MisterShiney    ✉    19:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A film being in English does not make it American. The BFI is an independent and respected institution that has strict criteria for how it judges the nationality of a film, basing it on the director, the nationality of the crew, etc. Thus Dredd is British/South African despite having an entirely British creative input and being based on a British comic because it was made entirely in South Africa with a South African crew and set. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So what does the BFI say it is? (Apoligies I can't do it myself, I am my phone) MisterShiney    ✉    20:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * British/American, like the first two. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

like the prometheus movie, you have to keep in mind here, that Warner owns the Batman franchise, has all the rights, who also produced the movie. -Legendary Pictures-USA -Syncopy Films-USA and UK -DC Comics-USA -Warner- USA

The BFI has too many errors, and those who control the page they dont know what they publish on their website says that AVATAR is a film of UK and USA, WTF? UK?? so alone a company of uk co-produced the film, that does not mean that is the UK, but still, Wikipedia says that is American, which is correct Same with this movie, the credits Does to the UK a country of origin in the movie, just because a company co-produced with other American producers? and also headquartered in the United States Syncopy films, the answer is No, the movie is a American film, especially if the original story is from the United States, and who. MervinVillarreal (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree,63.141.199.244 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh some good old fashioned Americanism. Any country involved in production of a film deserves recognition, despite the amount of involvement. I seem to remember a similar conversation on the latest James Bond film. BFI is still is a reliable source and saying it is not reliable is a personal opinion. MisterShiney   ✉    16:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your ultimate aim is just to get "American" placed in between "2012" and "superhero film". Other than that it's a complete non-issue that only you seem to care about. The inclusion of United States in the infobox is enough to make any reader with a brain realise this has a strong American element to it. As far as I care that is enough. Several websites list Syncopy as a British production company and if you watch behind the scenes interviews from the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, a significant number of the crew working on the films are British. Re Avatar - A UK company provided 60% of the budget in exchange for 30% of the profits, and helped co-produce the film seeing as Fox was so unsure with going through with it. Look up Ingenious Media when you have the time. TheClown90 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this movie is a American film, and also the entire franchise. 63.141.199.231 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr "TheClown90" but the idea is that not wearing the section of country the name of "United Kingdom" and not is patriotism, but it's true, because then avatar, 2012 film, Titanic and many movies also would have to put "UK" in section of country. and regarding avatar, maybe, "Ingenious Media" been given to the movie budget of 60%, but the movie is still a American film, and the history is from United States, the film was produced by American companies, among other aspects, that is exactly what happens in this movie, with Prometheus, World War Z, etc.

(y) 63.141.199.231, please create a account.

MervinVillarreal (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * UK companies had nothing to do with 2012 or Titanic so no they wouldn't. They did with TDKR and Avatar, hence why UK is included. It really isn't hard to understand. http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8ce87438 - http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b7eec3e28 TheClown90 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

the Avatar film has had little help from a British production, but the film is today and ever "American" this says James Cameron ,this says WIKIPEDIA, also all entertainment channels, British and American newspapers, anyway. I recommend you see the consensuses that were made by the nationality of Avatar, Titanic, Harry potter and other movies. The point is: Just as a small producer co-produced the Batman trilogy, the movie is not British film, let alone when the three producers are American, and when the company of Christopher Nolan is based in the U.S. and the UK. and Warner has the rights to the movie. And all the trilogy. and when the original story is from United States. 201.242.42.24 (talk) MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When everyone else is against you, it might be time to consider you might just be wrong and to drop it. We had someone pushing this same agenda, just as furiously, a few months ago. They were proven wrong too, and the pursuit of the agenda, combined with the recent change at Prometheus where you added United States BUT added it above the already existing United Kingdom, shows you have a clearly jingoistic agenda and bias which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Discussion has been had, sources have been provided, it is British/AMerican, end of story. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus is another movie, this is another issue first of all I want you to know that all companies that produce this film is based on usa. gk films including, yes... GK Films Now the question, where participate the kingdom imperialist in the film? UK forgiveness.MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What? Please make sense and try again. GRAPPLE   X  02:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where have you gotten this idea that who produces the film is the production country? BEcause this seems to be the major problem with your understanding. "I don't care what evidence you show me, this company is american so its american rah". I'm honestly tired of it here and at Prometheus, you've been given evidence, your evidence is "Wellthe company is American, rah". I'm sick of hearing it so unless you have any evidence to back up your claim, it's time to just leavee the discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

please read this


 * http://www.imdb.com/company/co0209646/


 * http://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=2519

if the movie has no British involvement "except the actors, but that does not determine the origin of the country" why then have "United Kingdom" in country? MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

then friends, i can change the nationality to the movie? first I need your permission and if i cant, explain why, OK?: c or will I need find other adms, or other important people to help me with this problem ..MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this Silent Hill? Where you do something and something bizarre happens? No, you can't change the nationality. What YOU think decides what a nationality is IS NOT THE RULE! YOU NEED EVIDENCE. FOR. THE. LAST. TIME! God, this is infuriating and it's going on across 3 different pages.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA, this is fun. whatever.

What evidence you want of me? THEN WHAT I NEED TO CHANGE THE NATIONALITY? if I have shown thousands of times that the UK does not participate to produce this movie. for this is the consensus, or i wrong..? and no, this is Wikipedia, where information must be given real.MervinVillarreal (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are saying. There is sourced evidence from a notable independent body that it is a UK/US production, this is not based on the standards you have set for such a judgement, and why the BFI did not turn to you for advice I do not know. But it is what it is, at this point I am done discussing this with you, you have no evidence to say that it is not a UK/US production, you just don't want it to be so. You've received multiple warnings, continue to push the agenda and you'll probably end up blocked. Please don't respond because you're either going to ignore what I've just said (again) and reiterate that your "my opinion is law" policy should be implemented immediately or just say something incomprehensible again that makes me think you're an 8 year old just messing with us for fun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't shown this once, let alone thousands of times. Stop lying, stop ignoring other editors' valid points, and just stop acting like a tool. GRAPPLE   X  03:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

why I'll end blocked? I taketh heed the warnings they told me, if I do anything more would not have to receive more warnings .. also create a consensus and discuss in not a crime, nor VANDALISM lol.

and no, I have 16 years old.

I want you to see this, because you can not stop talking about the "BFI" BFI BFI BFI also says that avatar is a British film ... Avatar? Also? I think that does not say on wikipedia http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8c544d22 Avatar also then you should put "UK" in country. or serious in backwards, this will remove the UK, and have only the american.

I will continue with the consensus,i try not to get another warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't know what consensus means. The consensus here is everyone that is not you. The rest I can't respond to because I don't understand it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

is best to leave this up here, as I revived the consensus of nationality, i know that someone else will, and better than me thanks for everything MervinVillarreal (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Video game
A Video game of the same name was released for iOS and Android to promote the movie. I think the game should be added in the Marketing section of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias
I didn't know that the Guardian is "center-left." I wonder who it's to the right of... I guess if I read it on Wikipedia, it must be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.170.132 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Batman's (supposedly) broken back.
First of all, I get that in the COMIC BOOK, Bane snaps Batman's spine, and the character is thus out of commission for a long time, and he finally gets special reconstructive surgery (which being a billionaire with access to the most advanced technology in a world where technology is much more advanced than in the world we live in, is semi-plausible).

But in the movie, nobody tells us his spine has been severed. We see that his back is severely injured, but we're never told that the spinal cord is no longer intact. And given the way he recovers, and WHERE he recovers, that's for a reason. Nolan doesn't want to go into detail about how exactly Batman's back has been injured, because he doesn't want people to say "Wait a minute, if his spine is severed, he couldn't possibly make a full recovery from just doing push-ups in a filthy prison cell while having rather questionable chiropractic work done on him by a fellow prisoner."

It is just incredibly stupid--and stubborn--to say "Bane breaks Batman's back". He HURTS Batman's back. Frankly, it's hard enough to believe that Batman can bounce back from a severely injured back, under the conditions he was living in, and come back stronger than ever, but it's semi-plausible. To suggest that Batman's severed vertebrae could be reconstituted through sheer force of will is not. Okay? Xfpisher (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But that is why the plot says "He seriously injures Batman's back and takes him to a foreign, well-like prison where escape is virtually impossible." It doesn't say that his back is broken. MisterShiney    ✉    19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I just made that edit--and have done so several times previously. And it keeps getting edited back.  Look, if somebody can produce an official quote from Chris Nolan that says Batman's spine gets snapped in this movie, then fine--that's what happens in the movie, and frankly, that's a serious problem with the movie.  But I think what's happening here is that some people who really loved the original comic book this movie is based on don't want to admit that Nolan went a different way with it.Xfpisher (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh ok! Fair enough. Yeah I am with you on this. It never said in the film his back was broken. Even if it did, they would of had to provide something that said how he was able to miraculously heal in a few months. :) MisterShiney    ✉    20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't like the way I phrased it--'breaks Batman's back' sounds cooler--but it's WRONG. :)Xfpisher (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Something to add, if you own a DVD copy of this one, check out the part where the prison doctor (or his assistant) pulled Bruce up and reset the bone. He said "There's a vertebra protruding from your back". Well, that's not a common behavior of a vertebra unless the spine is broken (which means his back is broken), so we can safely say his back's broken. Can we agree on this? Anyway, the plot is again too long from extending this part, so I'll have to trim it down a bit. It used to be "Bane breaks Batman's back", which is much shorter. I won't edit it back to "breaks Batman's back" yet until we agree on this, but I have to cut down some part of the sentence to keep it under 700 words. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well No, because it hasn't been released on DVD yet. That is all speculation and Original research. It wont answer how he healed so quickly. No way could you heal from a broken back within a few months. Alternatively, I would call it a slipped disk. But again, that is my interpretation and as such original research. I am happy to say Bane damaged Batman's back.  MisterShiney    ✉    12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Not out as DVD? I'm seeing one for USA on Amazon just now. Am I missing something? But nvm, BR, DVD, to me, it's a disc, no difference to me. Anyway, what I said really is an OR. But in any case, if you want to circumvent this part, I don't think we should extend other parts of the sentence too, so I trimmed the sentence. We need to keep it under 700 words, and even after I tried to work around saying his back was broken, I could only got it down to 701. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit's fine--I just thought it would be worth explaining why Bane wins the first fight so easily, but it's not like every last aspect of the plot has to be explained. The thing is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to explain how Batman heals himself, particularly if his spine is severed.  So 'a crippling blow', as opposed to 'breaks Batman's back' saves us from having to explain his recovery, by leaving the nature of the injury vague, as indeed Nolan does.  He's no idiot--he's adapting a story that he can't use in its original form (or doesn't want to, same difference), so he wants Bane to cripple Batman, but he also wants Batman to recuperate inside a horrible prison, at opposed to Stately Wayne Manor, with access to all the latest medical procedures--if he comes out and says "the spinal cord is severed', that destroys any hope of making that plausible.  Honestly, I think he kind of fumbled this aspect of the script (and a fair few others).  I'm a big fan of Nolan's Batman movies, but not of the Batman comics featuring Bane.  But the article is not the place to discuss any of that, so I really think your edit should stand.  It covers the necessary ground, and avoids raising issues that can never really be resolved, here or elsewhere.  We can all agree it's a crippling blow, and that's all that needs to be said.Xfpisher (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Dark Knight Rises
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Dark Knight Rises's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN": From Christian Bale:  From Superman/Batman: Apocalypse:  From Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows:  From Open world: Yu Suzuki, IGN From V for Vendetta (film):  From Constantine (film):  From Batman: The Brave and the Bold:  <li>From Jack the Giant Slayer: </li> <li>From Batman Incorporated: </li> <li>From Batman: Year One (film): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to editors: This has already been fixed here: A new user typed things wrong and mixed up some reference, probably because he was not familiar with the Wiki syntax. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot
I've just trimmed the plot section down to under 700 words, so please forgive any glaring errors that need fixing. I also attempted to standardise the use of naming throughout the plot (changing all males to last names, females to first), but I may have missed a few again. On top of this, I threw in some changes that I think needed to be made, so please feel free to discuss these. Chief amongst this was the changing of Miranda Tate's energy project to Bruce's; she invested in it, but all sources point to it being Bruce's to begin with. Thanks in advance for any mopping up that needs to be done, or any opinions you may have on the changes I've made. drewmunn (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? Naming them by gender seems weird for me. I would prefer that, like real life, any characters we are more used to should be called by first names? Like Bruce? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JTBX: Many editors have spent a long time trying to lower the word count of this article. We have spent a long time deliberating the content of the plot section, and much of your edit is made up of parts that once existed, but were removed as plot bloat. You also added a section about Robin which has been the lengthy subject of this talk page since the day the film was released. Although exceptions to the 700 word guideline can be made, we have previously discussed that we feel it should probably not be necessary for TDKR, as it is a linear film, and doesn't really need much explaining. There is quite a lot of plot, yes, but only 12 minutes more than TDK. drewmunn (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, it's probably just my somewhat old-fashioned standards for naming. I don't know where they initially developed, but it's something that I've always done, and it seems somewhat standard in my literary collection (admittedly made up mostly of 1 or 2 authors). However, according to the Manual of Style, people should be referred to by their surname only after their initial mention. Agreeably, this is classed under biographical, but I'll dig around and see if there's anything on specifics for fictional summaries. drewmunn (talk)
 * On a side note, me and JTBX are getting into a something of an edit war, so do other editors mind getting involved in putting points across? I'll look through plot editors and invite some along. JTBX is adding back details removed after lengthy previous discussions (see the Robin fiasco especially), along with additions of questionably necessary extras. I feel his edits are counter productive, and have invited him to this discussion, but would like others to put across their opinions. Thanks drewmunn (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am leaving a message on his talk page ATM. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am leaving a message on his talk page ATM. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work in getting it back down to under 700 words! It was getting a little bloated. I think we all were off the mind "oh, they have only added that little bit, thats ok." I know I was. It's great someone has Boldness to step up and trim it back down again. Whilst there are some exceptions (such as Pulp Fiction) to the MOS:FILM saying no more than 700, that is generally for non linier films such as Pulp Fiction. This is a linier film and as such, the plot section should only be 700 words. MisterShiney   ✉    12:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I agreed with most of the changes and the problems arose out of confusion from an edit conflict, that being said there are still areas of improvement. I believe that the major problem is that Bane is not properly introduced.--JTBX (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't already seen, this article failed its GA review over the plot section; the reviewer considered the plot to be missing background info. I've asked him for clarification on what to add, but I have to say I disagree with him. If we add backstory, we're in danger of repeating plot points from BB and TDK, both of which feed heavily into this plot. Also, is it likely that adding more would fail us on overly-long plot? I'm not familiar with this area of GA reviews, but I'm inclined to see what the reviewer comes back with as a suggestion, and evaluate whether those additions are necessary or potentially damaging. What do you think? drewmunn (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reviewer is not the end-all, be-all. I will request a second opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that! drewmunn (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * several "dumb" efforts are being made to trim the film's plot, taking out many key points in the process. OK, just let it go on. wat about creating a separate article for the plot? any reply, pls notify me on my talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not film page MOS to have seperate pages for the plot section. MisterShiney    ✉    11:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we advise Wiki to extend the plot limit? like 800 words limit? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can, but then in a few film times we will have the same conversation and will enxtend it to 900 words or a 1000 words? Where does it stop?
 * On the topic of plot what is with the MAJOR removal of content? It was 698 words...no need to remove further and then an IP comes in and takes out half the plot in one edit...? MisterShiney    ✉    09:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone change "but" to "and" in the sentence "In the aftermath, Batman is presumed dead but is honored as a hero."? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.247.181 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Most critic", and "warm" critical response?
Editors,

We seem to have a little content dispute.

First point: User VasOling insists on wording the lead section as "It received a warm critical response". I reworded it to "positive" critical response on the ground that the tone of Wikipedia shouldn't be subjective and remains neutral, per WP:Neutral. VasOling reverted it back on the ground that "Critical response is subjective, therefore the term "warm" is appropriate". Well, I strongly disagree. So I'd like to ask your opinion.

Second point: VasOling insists on saying "The Dark Knight Rises received positive reviews from most critics." I removed the word "most", as from what I've gathered on many film articles, we cannot say this for certain. Even though review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic indicate as such, we don't know their sample groups are large enough to represent "most" critics in the world. It might cover a lot of critics from English speaking world, but to say 289 samples or something cover "most" critic is dubious, and to say most of the critics in the world is highly doubtful. Also, English Wikipedia has its systemic bias; most contributors are people from Western civilization educated enough to speak English, and so are English sources used. We don't know what critics outside this group say. Articles like Prometheus and The Dark Knight for instance, avoid using this word and say instead "Rotten Tomatos have a concensus saying..." or "Metacritic have a concensus saying..." or something similar.

VasOling insist on using the word "most" under the ground that "Aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic indicate as such". So I would like to ask editors' opinion. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I caused any commotion. I changed the wording in the intro and critical response sections in fear of the article sounding repetitive and/or generic. I will leave it alone. - VasOling (talk) 1:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that the line between being repetitive and straying into an informal tone can be quite a fine one. It's a good idea to have a look at some film FAs and see how they approach the issue, and borrow any phrases from them that seem useful if you need variety. Terms like "warm response" are quite informal, so being repetitive would be the lesser problem here. GRAPPLE   X  19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how a line from the intro being similar to one from a section three quarters down the page is going to be detrimental to the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, editors for participating the discussion. VasOling, the lede section is supposed to repeat the same message described below. It is a compact, stand-alone summary of the entire artcile. People who can't be bothered to read the entire article are supposed to be able to just read lede and understand enough what the subject is about. See WP:Lede for more information. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

congratulations
hats off to all those who contributed to making Dark Knight Rises a good article. Maybe u can try for FA in the near future. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Future section
Just a quick note regarding the section just added by The Shadow-Fighter. Do we think it's notable enough? Having read through, I don't know if some of the references (especially earlier ones) stand up to scrutiny, so was wondering what people had to say. As it's early days regarding the future of Batman in film, the sections covering quite a bit of speculation and I think treads the line between heresay and fact a little too closely. It may just need some trimming or extra referencing, or it may need slimming down considerably until we've had some time for some more solid facts to surface. I'm not going to remove it personally without some consensus on the matter, so fire away! drewmunn (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Wasn't it generally negative from both critics and fans alike since it was described as a pantomime and not dark and edgy like its two predecessors' as a adult version of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman was expected but not received? So the reception section needs to be edited --124.148.84.69 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you can't see me, I'm laughing. drewmunn talk 12:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know Youtube isn't a reliable source but I based that information on comments and critic videos from that site. Since I can't edit protected pages someone else needs to put in the new information. --124.148.84.69 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooh, You're slightly serious! No, TDKR has received generally positive reviews, as the article correctly says. A few negative reviews exist, but that's life. The stats in the article are correct; over 80% of reviews are positive. drewmunn talk 13:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then we should leave it. --124.148.84.69 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That we shall. drewmunn talk 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot
At the end of the plot I wish that it be written "Some speculate that the ending scenes with Bruce and Selena seen by Alfred is a dream. It is believed that because Bruce was shown still in The Bat so close to the detonation that he didn't escape, but rather didn't activate the auto-pilot because he wished to die and be with Rachel and his parents in the afterlife.  These events were set up by Nolan to allow each person to determine what really happened." I much appreciate your time and hope that you take my suggestion into consideration. Sincerely, Watson Woodwat (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, without a reliable source where someone notable has mentioned this, it's just original research—a subjective interpretation of events over and above what's clearly represented. If it's been discussed by film critics or journals (Roger Ebert, Empire or Total Film, etc) then it could be added to the article, but without that it's not something present in the film itself to be summarised in the plot section. GRAPPLE   X  03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed this edit request as Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per the above response. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the business at the beginning of the movie with the capture of Dr. Pavel by Bane and the plane crash be included in the plot section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.221.74 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not actually important to the plot, so we don't cover it here. Adding it wouldn't make the plot summary any more complete, instead it'd just add words to the count. drewmunn talk 07:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the entire first act of the movie, it also establishes Bane and his connection to Daggett. I was also unclear about the transferring of the blood pack on the airplane before it crashed and was really surprised that wikipedia didn't cover this at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.221.74 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The plot section is entirely coherent without it; things can be deceiving in that you think they're necessary, but they turn out not to be. We don't need to know how Bane got Pavel, just that he did. As far as the blood transfusion goes, the mercenaries placed a body double of Pavel on the plane, and pumped Pavel's blood into it. This is meant to trick the DNA test the CIA perform on the body after the crash. In reality, this wouldn't work, but in the universe of the film, we assume it did. drewmunn talk 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the above - the screenplay is available online and it clearly states that Alfred sees Bruce and Selina alive together. Definitely not a dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.32.252 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The screenplay is not necessarily available online; versions (perhaps leaked, perhaps transcripts) are available, but the notability and reliability of these cannot be established. It is, however, available in book format, and I believe that is more reliable. Anyway, this doesn't matter, as we only say what's visible in the film, which is that they are seen alive and well. drewmunn talk 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

IP comment
I've copied this from the top, and given it a section.

The Article portion lists quite a few cities where filming occurred. Several of those do not have links to Wikipedia pages. One in particular (though not the only one) is London. Come on, are you telling me London doesn't have a Wiki page? Of course it does, so please edit the Article to link all of the possible cities to wikipedia Articles of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.197.53 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't link to seriously obvious articles, else nearly every word would be linked. Your example, London, is not particularly link-worthy, and a link would not add anything to the article content. For future reference, please add new sections to the talk page by using the new section button at the top, or by manually adding it at the bottom of the page, with a suitable title. I have moved the comment for you for now. Also, you should sign talk posts by adding four tildes at the end ( ~ ). drewmunn talk 22:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Use Selena Kyle's first name.
I think we should use Selena Kyle's first name because she is better remembered than her surname. Sure some characters are referred to by their last names, but others such as Bruce and Alfred are not. One sentence in the plot-line says, "Alfred witnesses Bruce and Kyle together." If Bruce and Alfred are referred to by their first names in that sentence, why not Selena? Also "Kyle" is a common male first name, so the sentence might mislead readers into thinking that Bruce is with a man." Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the remnant of a discussion had a while back, and completely depends on writing style. As I noted in the original discussion (after I re-wrote the plot summary), I refer to people in writing by the surname if male, and their forename if female. The only exception to this was Alfred, which I left as "Alfred", because his surname is never mentioned in the trilogy. This has been altered along the way by other editors, and the choice of names seems to be down the whatever a passing editor feels like. May I suggest you open an RfC so we can attempt to reach consensus once and for all? drewmunn talk 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nicholasemjohnson. She's not a real person, and she's not a fictional police officer. She should be referred to as Selina, consistently, after her full name is introduced.Zythe (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with his choice, but as we have never reached consensus on the matter (despite it being the cause of a minor conflict in the past), it really needs some kind of further discussion before we can point to any definite answer. All three of our reasons for choosing her first name are different, so we don't even have consistency in consensus. drewmunn talk 11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This poll is becoming a bad joke.
People are basing their votes on what the law officers say, NOT Selina's on-screen behavior. I believe the poll was titled "Do Selina's actions amount to kidnap?" That question can only be answered based on what we see Selina Kyle DO on-screen. But people are, instead, answering the question "What do the police officers think Selina did to the congressman?"

How can this poll possibly be valid when the respondents are not answering the correct question?

And much of the 24 hours are already gone. I request a re-do of the poll with emphasis on Selina's actions required -- or, that all answers which use the police department's investigation (or the unspecified charges the congressman presses) be voided. Police opinion was never the question.

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it sounds sort of like WP:IDHT. The poll is clear, and with the exception of you, everyone is going with what the movie and the sources indicate.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Greg. As I've tried to make very clear, the respondents simply are not answering the question.
 * The question is, Do Selina's actions amount to kidnap? [Emphasis added] I didn't choose that wording, but it's perfect. I couldn't have asked for better wording. Unfortunately, our few respondents simply are not answering it. They are not citing any of Selina's actions as rationale for their votes. They are citing what the police do or say. That's not an answer about Selina's actions.
 * You've already stated clearly you have a personal bias against me. Why don't you just go take a break and do something else, something you can do in good faith? You're a smart man. You can contribute more meaningfully elsewhere, instead of throwing "Thou Shalt Not" articles at me maliciously. I'd really rather wrap this up peacefully.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. You're not even choosing your "Thou Shalt Not" articles with any particular care anymore. Your WP:IDHT begins, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." This is a 24-hour poll that's been up for scarcely eight hours. No progress had been disrupted whatsoever. Considering you seem to be citing these out of sheer hostility, I'm probably not going to click on them anymore. So you might as well just stop. Please. --Ben Culture (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I don't have any hostility towards you. Second, I don't hear that links to a section of disruptive editing.  If I thought that you were completely disruptive, I would have said so and linked to that, instead of the section on listening to consensus.  You believe that the question is different from the one presented - I disagree.  BTW, earlier you said you didn't have access to the screenplay - it is linked above (Google Books, preview).  Finally, the poll doesn't expire in 24 hours, it takes 24 hours to be posted on the request for comment noticeboard, at which point it is likely that additional editors will see it and respond.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole thing boils down to "What does the primary source say and what does it not say." The primary source, the film, says that it was a kidnapping. Any interpretation of Selina's behaviour is original research and synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand what I meant when I told you "the film is not a character", so let me try it another way:
 * What the film "says" is very much open to debate.
 * I actually have no idea what you are thinking when you refer to the film "saying" things to you.
 * When, exactly, does the film "tell" you that Selina kidnapped, rather than seduced, the congressman? DVD timing, please? Hell, just tell me which chapter, that'll do.
 * No, to observe Selina's behavior, what she does and does not do (does not use force or coercion, does not drug or restrain, does not demand ransom) is NOT, by any definition, Original Research, or Original Synthesis. If it was, we'd have to wipe out the entire "Plot" section of every film article, now, wouldn't we?
 * Where were you, opponent of Original Thought that you are, when my "seduces" was changed to "kidnaps" because "the use of either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs to placate him denotes captivity (not free to leave)". This was, as I've been saying all day, raw speculation (we never see any such thing in the film, and he's clearly able to walk) and yet, NOBODY SEEMS TO MIND IT! Not ONE (1) person has stood up beside me and said "Yes, that sort of naked speculation is completely inappropriate." I can't begin to describe how helpful and reassuring that would be, if just one fucking person would just join me in nay-saying this sort of thing.
 * Instead, somehow, I'M the bad guy who wants to destroy this article. Me.
 * I'd say the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but really, there's only, like, four or five of you guys. So it's not that big a deal. Still, there's only one of me.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Seriously...look up "says" in a dictionary. The film is a medium which "says" things that the audience can interpret.
 * But to the point, the primary source says that the event was a kidnapping. That's it. That's all we can say about the plot when we summarise it. Anything else like "It was only a seduction" or "The police were wrong", etc. falls into original research and synthesis and interpretation. And, yes, "copious amounts of alcohol" was also original research and synthesis and interpretation. Doesn't make your interpretation any less original research than that one. So thanks for pointing that one out, now please understand that you're doing the exact same thing, and neither is encyclopaedic. DonQuixote (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you won't understand the distinction, but I NEVER said "It was only a seduction", and by not only quoting me saying it, but adding your own emphasis to "only", I find exceedingly dishonest.
 * I was already disgusted with you, after our discussion on your Talk page. What you have to say here has only sickened me further. Please leave me alone. I no longer care what happens to this article. You win. People like you can have this dump. The once-glorious Wikipedia ... I can't believe I ever said "I hope it's around 500 years from now" ... it's already dying. I no longer give a fuck.
 * With every film, including this one, what it "says" is very much open to debate. Whether YOU understand that OR NOT.
 * The film NEVER explicitly states that Selina kidnapped the congressman. I've seen your sad excuse for "explicit" proof, and it's damned clear you have no idea what that word means. A cop saying "I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping" is a long, long, LONG fucking way from explicit proof that the Congressman was with Selina against his will. And it's clear to any man who's old enough to have been with a woman that he's happy to be with Selina -- until he gets shot.
 * Goodbye, Don Quixote. For the third time. Please take it seriously this time.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't you overreacting a bit? I mean, this is just one detail on one page. D arth B otto talk•cont 03:39, 05 September 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but it's a film full of people doing truly terrible things. Some of them are done by Selina -- kicking Bruce's cane out from under him, helping to bankrupt him by stealing his fingerprints, and luring him to near-death at the hands of Bane. So to add fictitious "crimes" that didn't occur -- like kidnapping -- just waters down the effect of the film, which is (I think) to create a great deal of fear for Gotham, its innocent victims and its various heroes, before the resolution of the story.
 * Plus, I know that the job of film is to SHOW us things, moreso than to TELL us things. What it shows us is often at variance with what characters say; this is especially true in a suspense film. The film doesn't show us a kidnapping; it shows us a clever, fortuitous seduction (fortuitous for Selina; it saves her life). That it also shows us cops saying it's a "kidnapping" is no more meaningful than the doctor telling Bruce he's unfit for strenuous activity (although, that WAS a pretty big plot hole, since having no cartilage in your knees is a permanent disability, and Bruce lost Fox's handy little prosthetic device. There's really no way in hell he'd have ever gotten out of that pit in real life.)
 * The congressman is simply not a victim. Of anything. Perfectly typical for a married politician to twist a brief "fling" with a pretty young woman into a "kidnapping", going so far to press charges and play the victim. You don't even have to "read between the lines" to get THAT. Regardless of what some characters say, we SAW what happened -- he went with Selina willingly and gladly. Then it went bad for him, and as a public figure, he chose to play the victim. Happens all the time. --Ben Culture (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realise that what you're describing is your interpretation of events and isn't in any way depicted on screen, right? That right there is going into original research territory. For example: "Perfectly typical for a married politician to twist a brief "fling" with a pretty young woman into a "kidnapping", going so far to press charges and play the victim." How do you know that this was the case? Combining what's shown in the film with your experiences in other narratives is synthesis. And your first point is beside the point (no pun intended). "Waters down the effect" and "fictitious"...again, your interpretation.
 * Also, the film can "tell" us by "showing". You're just being too narrowly literal with this. What the film shows us is a seduction which later, according to the police and the congressman, is described as a kidnapping. Reading anything else, like the above, is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Congressman was not being held against his will. He didn't want her to leave him.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So? That is not the definition of kidnapping in all jurisdictions.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sonicdrewdriver . . ..
Sir,

How many times, and in how many ways, will I have to demonstrate to you that Selina Kyle did not kidnap the Congressman? That, rather, she seduced him?

First I had to explain to you that there was no demand for ransom, there was no use of force, and she did not keep him in captivity of any kind. What we saw was the congressman following Selina around, opening doors for her (of course), unbound, unchained, free to speak, and utterly smitten, by the simple fact that Selina Kyle is fucking hot (and those of you who deny that have probably never been with a woman half as sexy in your lives!)

In perhaps desperation, you reverted yet another "seduces->kidnaps" edit of mine, with the Edit Summary "the use of either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs to placate him denotes captivity (not free to leave).)"

BUT WE SEE NO SUCH THING HAPPEN IN THE FILM.

Did we? Have I missed something? Tell me the DVD timing for such a scene and I'll look it up. If you can PROVE me wrong, I'll gladly drop it with my full apologies. But it has to be explicitly shown. "Reading between the lines" is not for Wikipedia!

--Ben Culture (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I must add, of course, that I am perfectly interested in getting other people's opinions. However, if you are one person using a second name, please reveal that in your comments, so we all know you're not sockpuppeting.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I get to the matter in hand, I'd like to point out a couple of things: firstly, capslock is shouting, and shouting isn't really civil. I'm in the business of civil, mature discussion, and would appreciate it if you too aimed for such an atmosphere. Rendering the caps in bold doesn't help dispel that myth either. On a similar note, presuming (or pre-empting) I would use a sockpuppet to attempt to enforce my views on the community is uncivil. I have been around for far too long, and built up too much of a reputation to spoil it for such a trivial matter.
 * Anyway, these are my views as far as the issue of kidnapping goes: The Model Penal Code states that "kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function." Consent is defined by the following sentence: "A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another." The fact that the senator in question is seen drinking alcohol, sat in a bar, unaware of what is happening around him, denotes that he is not exercising sufficient mental capacity.


 * New readers will need to know that the above sentence is a complete falsehood. We never see the Congressman take a single drink, or drug, of any kind, and he is perfectly aware what's going on around him. He simply shows more interest in seeing his own face on the news (and laughing about it), rather than listening in on a private conversation between Stryver and Selina. I already stressed this in the very first comment of this section, the very comment Sonicdrewdriver (Who is also "drewmunn") is replying to. He complained about my use of all caps for ten short words ("BUT WE SEE NO SUCH THING HAPPEN IN THE FILM"), so we know he saw it, but he did not take the time to read it, it would seem. He writes as if he didn't read the comment he's replying to. This (ducking the facts in favor of aesthetic complaints) is counter-productive, time-wasting, intellectual dishonesty ("Your capital letters hurt my eyes so badly I couldn't read them"?!?) and only destroys any chance of a smooth resolution to this matter.


 * I'm not one for throwing those "Wikipedia: Guildelines and Rules" articles in people's faces, but I KNOW there's at least one article to the effect of "Don't hide behind the rules", as some do to prevent peaceful resolutions. To complain about a ten-word sentence in ALL-CAPS, while ignoring the content of the sentence, is exactly that. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I could find the relevant article on it. Anyway, you certainly wasted a lot of your own, mine, and other readers's time by making an argument primarily based on your invention of intoxication. --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Selina is using him to facilitate the commission of a felony, denotes kidnapping.


 * Says who, please? The penal codes of Gotham City?
 * It's a fictional city. It doesn't exist and you DON'T know the laws. None of us do. So, once again, we must rely on what the film shows and does not show. It shows the Congressman being with Selina freely and under his own power, sober, making no complaints or attempting to flee, never acting victimized. It is only after the politician has been caught in a bar, with a woman not his wife, interviewed by police, treated for a gunshot wound, and sent home to wifey that he decides to "press charges". What choice does a politician have?


 * Furthermore, we are never told WHAT charge(s) he presses. To assume kidnapping and insist upon it is the exact opposite of good Wikipedia editing. The exact opposite!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd finally like to note the definition of a honeytrap: "a honeytrap, is a trap set to capture, kill or compromise a person, commonly but not necessarily an opposition agent, officer, or employee, using sex as the lure." This is the seduction to which you refer, used as the mechanism by which capture was achieved. I agree that seduction was used, and I would never argue otherwise (although I do not think Hathaway particularly attractive) [Yeah, you'd kick her out of your bed. Right. Your credibility just gets better and better. --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)], but it was a device used to aid the goal Selina was aiming for, and that goal was kidnap. The fact that captivity was not explicitly shown in the form of a ball and chain, or padlocked doors, does not mean it was not otherwise in place. A sufficiently drunk or drugged person is easy to coerce in any way, and is unlikely to get far if they attempt to run.


 * Except -- New Readers, Take Note! -- We never see the Congressman drink AT ALL or take ANY drug, or see him act drugged. The burden of proof is not on me, to prove he wasn't kidnapped; the burden of proof is on those who insist that he was.


 * I understand you disagree with my opinion, but note that it does not synthesise anything beyond what is shown on screen, and is based on legal definitions for terms. Feel free to start an RfC, or ask for input on the WikiProject Film talk page. I will endeavour to seek further opinions (non-bias, as is required by our guidelines), and will also try to find someone with a legal background to give their opinion. drewmunn talk 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of work at WikiProject Law and WikiProject SCOTUS, and came here in response to the question on kidnapping. The federal kidnapping statute and many state statutes have two elements:  proof that the defendant 1) seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, abducted, or carried away a person and 2) held that person for ransom or reward or otherwise.  In the movie it is clear that Kyle "inveigled" or "decoyed" (either can be accomplished by seduction) the congresscritter away for the purpose of facilitating the flight after the commission of a felony (the "otherwise" in the elements).  Inveigle has been defined by the courts as “to lure, or entice, or lead the person astray by false representations or promises, or other deceitful means.”  United States v. Garza-Robles, 627 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Macklin, 671 F.2d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1982).  Otherwise has been held to mean "any reason which would in any way be of benefit." Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128, (1936).  It's a fairly clear-cut case of kidnapping, and is supported later in the movie when she is arrested.   At that point she is informed that the congressman is pressing charges, presumably for kidnapping, since that is the most likely charge.  Both the Model Penal Code and common law kidnapping are similar to the federal statute.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

'[I'm sorry, but now you're just lying''. We NEVER see the man drink, take drugs, or get drugged against his will. That is a complete fiction that YOU made up! You absolutely are synthesizing out of your own head.] [Again: Under the penal codes of Gotham City?][We never see her charged with kidnapping. You are assuming! --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)]'''


 * This is Ben Culture quoting Greg:

"[Selina] is informed that the congressman is pressing charges, presumably for kidnapping [That is your presumption, and presumptions don't belong in Wikipedia plot descriptions], since that is the most likely charge. [In your opinion. In my opinion, it's reckless endangerment, but I already KNOW that opinions do not belong in Wikipedia plot descriptions.]"
 * This is Ben continuing: The burden of proof is not on me to prove the Congressman was not kidnapped. The burden of proof is on those who insist that he was. --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for that Greg; Ben, do you understand the point I am making about the use of seduction as a kidnapping technique? drewmunn talk 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ben, do you understand the point I am making about the use of seduction as a kidnapping technique? drewmunn talk 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Understand it? Yes. Buy it? Not even a little bit. --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay:
 * We see no such thing happen in the film.
 * (At a quarter of its original size, it's still as true as ever!)
 * Frankly, you deserved to be "yelled" at (you should try growing up with people who actually yell at you, so you could understand why it's impossible for me to see you as anything but an unbearable whiner), but you used the exceedingly-minor issue of my one sentence in all-caps to completely disregard the central point of my post. Which tells me I'm dealing with an intellectually-dishonest person, who at this point is wishing to win by any means necessary, including the use of raw speculation.
 * I've made it clear: I'm willing to be wrong. Just prove it! I've asked you to provide me the DVD timing in which we see the congressman forced to consume "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs" You understand those are your words, yes? "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs". That is by any reasonable defintion naked speculation. You engaged in pure speculation about what might have happened off-screen. If you have really been editing Wikipedia as long as you say, then you know there is NO place for naked speculation in our articles. YOU are engaging in Original Research, Synthesis, or Thought, not I. I have watched the film many times and never seen him do more than sit in a bar, munching on peanuts and watching himself on TV. That he's laughing to see the TV reports about him being missing only tells me what kind of a guy he is, what kind of life he's had, and how sick of it he gets, like any other politician. It does not suggest drug use; having tried most drugs I can't imagine which one you're thinking of that makes people wander away from their busy, important lives. No. Love will do that, sex will do that, a mid-life crisis will definitely do that, but no drug I know of will do that. And we never see him take a drug. Or chug a big pile of beers. Or anything remotely like that.
 * I'm not even going to address the legalese in this reply. Perhaps later. I think you've got my point: You have no case! Please stop GOOFING around with Wikipedia and stick to matters of FACT! Please!
 * Still eagerly awaiting those DVD timings,
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made it clear: I'm willing to be wrong. Just prove it! I've asked you to provide me the DVD timing in which we see the congressman forced to consume "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs" You understand those are your words, yes? "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs". That is by any reasonable defintion naked speculation. You engaged in pure speculation about what might have happened off-screen. If you have really been editing Wikipedia as long as you say, then you know there is NO place for naked speculation in our articles. YOU are engaging in Original Research, Synthesis, or Thought, not I. I have watched the film many times and never seen him do more than sit in a bar, munching on peanuts and watching himself on TV. That he's laughing to see the TV reports about him being missing only tells me what kind of a guy he is, what kind of life he's had, and how sick of it he gets, like any other politician. It does not suggest drug use; having tried most drugs I can't imagine which one you're thinking of that makes people wander away from their busy, important lives. No. Love will do that, sex will do that, a mid-life crisis will definitely do that, but no drug I know of will do that. And we never see him take a drug. Or chug a big pile of beers. Or anything remotely like that.
 * I'm not even going to address the legalese in this reply. Perhaps later. I think you've got my point: You have no case! Please stop GOOFING around with Wikipedia and stick to matters of FACT! Please!
 * Still eagerly awaiting those DVD timings,
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You said:
 * A sufficiently drunk or drugged person is easy to coerce in any way, and is unlikely to get far if they attempt to run. I understand you disagree with my opinion, but note that it does not synthesise anything beyond what is shown on screen, and is based on legal definitions for terms.
 * That ("it does not synthesise anything beyond what is shown on screen") is an out-and-out falsehood. Please understand I am on the very edge of calling you a liar. You have put me there. You and I both know there is never shown on-screen any consumption of "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs", as you speculated. We never see that. For all intents and purposes, it does not happen. I really don't want to get sucked into this damn movie again, but I'm gonna have to take The Walking Dead Season 3 out and stick this overlong horror story in, just to prove to my own satisfaction (since you failed to send me any DVD timings showing any such consumption) that we never-never-EVER see the Congressman shooting junk, smoking rock, or guzzling firewater.
 * sigh. I can't believe you're making me do this. I shouldn't have to. I'll be right back.
 * Watching . . . watching . . ..
 * Okay, she's in the congressman's limo: "Can I have a ride?" she asks. Soberly (but cheerfully) enough, he replies, "You read my mind. Let's go!" All looking very consensual so far . . . But Congie doesn't make it home on time, and when Mrs. Congie gets this reported all the way up to Commissioner Gordon, he says "That's a job for the police?" (24 hours haven't passed yet, apparently)
 * Finally . . . The bar scene. The Congressman opens the door for her and continues walking ahead of her. Relaxed but not stumbling. Selina sits him down at a table, and -- surprise, surprise, we don't see him drink anything! We see him cheerfully eating peanuts! (Do you suppose Selina pre-arranged with the bar manager to dope up the peanuts?!?)
 * He drinks NOTHING -- do you grasp that? Nothing, as in "at all"! We never see this man take a single drink!
 * Then there's the melee. Our poor Congressman gets shot (Reckless endangerment is probably the charge he pressed on her later, not kidnapping) and, not being loaded on drugs or alcohol, he remains conscious, holding his wound to keep pressure on it, and asks after her "Call me?"
 * What kidnapping victim asks his kidnapper to call him later?!?
 * Okay. I'm done watching this damn movie, and probably done watching this page, too. If you really want to ruin the article, make it all make much less sense, and add plot threads that never happened onscreen, go right the hell ahead. Ruin the damn article if you absolutely have to. I don't care.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, first, you need to review WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA - your response violates all of those and is inappropriate. Second, just before the airport scene where Selina Kyle is arrested, you see Blake spot Kyle and get on the radio, saying "Get me Commissioner Gordon, I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping."  It is also in Christopher Nolan's book, "The Dark Knight Trilogy" with the exact same quote.  See .  Other reliable sources include,  , and .  Third, with the screenplay, the movie, and reliable sources calling it a kidnapping, it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  Fourth, I don't care whether you like or dislike the "legalese."  I responded to a request at WikiProject Law asking for exactly what I provided.  Finally, had your answer been more civil, I would not have been inclined to look up all the sources, I would have moved on to other articles.  The moral is don't be a WP:DICK.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you altered the focus of your research and the conclusions you drew from it out of a personal dislike for me. Impressive. Never seen that before.
 * I do not have access to the screenplays, nor can I afford to buy them. All else I see here are reviews. A reviewer claiming Selina "kidnaps" a congressman is hardly proof she actually did the deed. It is her on-screen behavior we must focus on, nothing else. If you want to create a page called "The Dark Knight Trilogy (screenplays)" or some such, you can call it whatever you like. In the film it is a clever seduction by a woman who has become an expert at seduction.
 * The fact that the police are treating the situation as a kidnapping, are referring to it as such (he's a congressman, he went missing, of course they're assuming a kidnapping) does not mean Selina actually committed a kidnapping. Cops are wrong all the time. In a court of law, she'd likely be found innocent of such a charge.
 * And FYI, I had no feelings of dislike towards you. My aggravation grew slowly as Sonicdrewdrivermunn repeatedly reverted my edits with insufficient Edit Summaries and no discussion on Talk Pages. I think all but the most minor of edits should be discussed here on these pages before the destruction begins. I thought that's what these pages were for,. If they're not -- if it's okay for one user to hover over an article, reverting the same change repeatedly, with brief Edit Summaries made of abbreviations I don't recognize -- or, y'know, naked speculation about "copious amounts of either drink or drugs" -- I'll gladly leave.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now who is speculating? Found innocent?  In the movie, she is sent to Blackgate prison, as the screenplay states.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've read the screenplay? Great! Tell us what she was sent to prison for!
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As you don't seem to value the responses given by myself and Greg, I've opened an RfC below, along with a straw poll. drewmunn talk 11:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonicdrewdriver, can you sincerely expect me to "value" such wild speculation as "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs", when you use it as your sole justification for reverting my edit? Come on, man -- can't you just admit to speculating? I'm not asking you to confess to murder!
 * I'll start valuing you again when you admit you engaged in raw speculation about what you personally imagine might have happened OFF-SCREEN. And that Wikipedia isn't the place for that.
 * After that happens, we'll be all good.
 * (Inappropriate material has been removed, with my personal apologies to Sonicdrewdriver, who, I'm sure, is as committed as I am to making the article the best it can be. Sonicdrewdriver, I was wrong to say those things, and I'm sorry.)
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ... With that reasoning, aren't your assertions that she most likely is being charged with reckless endangerment pure speculation, as well? Or does the rule only apply when somebody else is making their case? D arth B otto talk•cont 18:21, 04 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a double standard, wouldn't it?
 * The truth is, it's speculation either way: It's speculation to suggest ANY specific crime the congressman charges Selina with.
 * But that kind of speculation is a long, LONG way off from Sonicdrewdriver's claim that, offscreen, Selina forced or cajoled the Congressman into consuming "either copious amounts of alcohol or other drugs", which was his SOLE explanation for reverting my change of "kidnaps" to "seduces". We never see the congressman so much as SIP a single beer. Yet Sonicdrewdriver would have us believe the man was somehow unable to flee (and believe me, even a man loaded on good Afghani heroin can flee for his life). The man made an edit based on wild speculation, not the reasonable sort such as wondering what exactly Selina was charged with. I would very much appreciate somebody agreeing with me that such speculation is inappropriate. It would do *ever* so much to calm me down in this situation. Just one person, acknowledging a very obvious case of wild, unfounded speculation. --Ben Culture (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

, you said: "I do not have access to the screenplays, nor can I afford to buy them. All else I see here are reviews. A reviewer claiming Selina "kidnaps" a congressman is hardly proof she actually did the deed.". I am sorry, but ease of accessibility to sources is not a requirement nor an argument. The script is as much a primary source as the film itself, where as the film does not spell out motive or actions, while the script does.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , if you have access to the script, why haven't you cited what it actually says that could prove the Congressman was somehow kidnapped (all the while walking with her freely, smiling, laughing, and asking her to call him later)? Why haven't you told us what it says? Could it be because the only thing in the script you are referring to is the cop saying "I've got a line on the Congressman's kidnapping", which you and I both know proves nothing of the kind?
 * If you're going to cite the script (and I assume you are referring to a commercially-sold book and not something floating around the Internet which claims to be a script, because I assure you there are a LOT of phony scripts available online), I think the least you could do for us is QUOTE it, please. A source from which you can't quote is no source at all.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There has already been a link to references. The burden of evidence is met with a reliable source, just because you seem unable to find the proper sources online from links provided or have not taken the time to Google this, it isn't our fault. The information is accurate, verifiable and sourced.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Selina kidnap?
Please read the above discussion, which outlines the issue and my initial response (along with that of one other contributor). Basically, I'm asking if the actions taken by Selina early in the movie amount to kidnapping the congressman or not. Your opinions are appreciated! Also, I've set up a straw poll to gauge general feelings as well as discussion. Cheers! drewmunn talk 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll
Do Selina's actions amount to kidnap?

This poll is about Selina's behavior, NOT the police investigation of the Congressman's disappearance, nor the unspecified'' charges he presses afterwards. Please base your answers on Selina's on-screen actions, not what the police say about her afterwards.'' --Ben Culture (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes: See my reasoning on the above section, where the definition of "kidnap" is deconstructed by myself and later GregJackP. From a legal standpoint, what is shown on screen is kidnap. drewmunn talk 11:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course not. We see no evidence that the congressman is drunk (we don't see him take A SINGLE DRINK), on drugs, or otherwise coerced. Selina makes no use of force, does not hold him captive, and does not demand a ransom. The charges he later presses against her (we are not told) are more likely to be reckless endangerment than kidnapping. You can't say the Congressman was kidnapped without engaging in speculation about what might have happened off-screen. As it should go without saying, just because the police treat it as a kidnapping case does not mean it actually IS a kidnapping. --Ben Culture (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, per the movie, screenplay, and reliable sources noted in my comment above.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, per "Get me Commissioner Gordon, I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping." DonQuixote (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - The kidnapping is the only specific crime the police mention, plus they respond directly to the correlation to the Congressman by confirming he is pressing charges. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:19, 04 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes All the legal arguing is simply real world perspective that is not appropriate here and amounts to original research, IDHT and synthesis. The script is clear, the film is clear and as noted above several sources also show the information. A single person seems to have requested this RFC in a manner that could be seen as disruptive. This could be closed under a snow ball clause.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - But seriously- is this worth an RFC. Why to I feel like I am evesdropping on an argument on the sidewalk outside a ComicCon convention? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I mean, I only saw the movie back last year and haven't watched my Blu-ray yet, but if it is generally described and seen as a kidnapping in the film, without any disputing of it then it was a kidnapping. Should criticism of this characterization be available in reliable sources then it may merit some mention, though I doubt it is a noteworthy criticism.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Barsad links to Deadshot.
Is there any particular reason why Barsad's name links to the DC character Deadshot? The character is not identified as such in the film, and such a link is misleading. If I am wrong, please cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibleandbandana (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this was discussed previously, although it is in contravention of WP:EGG, so unless anyone can provide a counter to that, it should go. drewmunn talk 18:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping
I corrected the article based on the consensus in the RfC, above. GregJackP  Boomer!   17:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like the dissenter is actually right. The fact that characters in the movie call it kidnapping doesn't necessarily mean that the movie depicts a kidnapping, if the characters in the movie are not depicted as knowing what's going on. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Could be, though I doubt it. In any event, the community reached consensus that the sources supported the term "kidnapping."   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fix link please
In the next to the last paragraph in the Filming section - the 4th paragraph - this sentence appears:
 * While filming scenes in Pittsburgh, Hathaway's stunt double crashed into an IMAX camera while filming a sequence that required her to ride a Batpod down a flight of stairs during a riot.

In order to work properly, the wikilink should be changed to this:
 * While filming scenes in Pittsburgh, Hathaway's stunt double crashed into an IMAX camera while filming a sequence that required her to ride a Batpod down a flight of stairs during a riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.85.205 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

82.15.121.176 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Box office
Uh, really? Box office of Dark Knight Rises is $1,084 million ? Why can't just put it in billion? very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.97.74 (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with either 1.084 billion or 1,084 million. As to why here are a couple reasons: 1,084 million is less ambiguous: to some a billion is one million million instead of one thousand million as it is in the US. Also most accounting numbers are in terms of millions so this makes comparisons easier.AbramTerger (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014
Don't write $1,000 million. That's really confusing.

173.54.254.11 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (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. NQ (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Good catch.  Millahnna (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014
The critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes is "The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious, thoughtful, and potent action film that concludes Christopher Nolan's franchise in spectacular fashion."

Gamergrant (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I've updated the page to use RotTomBot via Rotten Tomatoes score and it should update itself from now on... If this doesn't happen within a couple weeks or an error message occurs please let me know. Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars
I have again rounded the Box Office dollars per MOS:LARGENUM. If there are reasons for us to NOT use the established WP style, let's discuss and come to a consensus about the reasons for the deviation. Styles are established to try and maintain consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Add to intro
Why does the intro not say the film is considered one of the best superhero films ever when it is listed on Wikipedias "list of films considered the best" article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.92.173 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the Best superhero films ever made
Will some please add this to the end of "Upon release it received critical acclaim and is widely considered by publications to be one of the best films of 2012"

"And, like its predecessors, is considered of the best superhero films ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014
Acknowledge that it is considered one of the best superhero films of all time

98.28.130.193 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Why has no one added that it is considered one of the best superhero films ever made when it is on Wikipedias list of films considered the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.92.173 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine we will add it to the intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Question
Was it ever explain why CIA would shoot a man, before throwing him out of a plane? 201.210.249.61 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Because he's a big guy for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.154.75 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone get these hotheads out of here. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Producer/writer credits
An editor keeps altering the order of the credits in the infobox, placing Christopher Nolan before Emma Thomas in the "producer" field, and before Jonathan Nolan in the "writer" field. The credit order should match the order given in the film otherwise we are misrepresenting the credits. Will someone with a copy of the film please check and correct accordingly. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Country of Origin
The American Film Institute does not credit the United Kingdom as a country of origin with regards to production of this film. But, on the contrary the British Film Institute does and labels it as a production of the United States and United Kingdom. So, who takes a backseat between these two institutes? This is an American financed film owned by an American studio (Warner Bros.) and produced mostly by an American film production company (Legendary Pictures). Einsteinbomb (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is different sources use different criteria leading to different conclusions. The BFI will also qualify a film as British if it meets its "cultural test" or if it was co-produced under a bilateral co-production treaty. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talia or Talia al Ghul
In the film, the name Talia al Ghul is not used, only Talia. The article states otherwise. Some of those who have commented on the film have conflated the comic book interpretation of the character with the film portrayal, the latter of which is all this article is concerned with. The film itself is the most reliable source, and it can be seen in the script that "al Ghul" is not given as the character's last name at all. http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Dark-Knight-Rises,-The.html Stating in the plot summary that Miranda Tate reveals herself to be "Talia al Ghul" is outright wrong. Let's establish what is accurate here. Ozdarka (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Crispus Allen
Rob Brown (actor) is listed as playing him but there is a cite needed tag.

15 August 2012 there was a claim along these lines:
 * there is a policeman with a badge with the name, 'Allen' on it that can be seen outside the stock exchange

No indication of who played him though. Can we check the end credits? Ranze (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Kidnapping
The plot synopsis says Selina kidnaps the Congressman. He is never shown being held against his will, and he tells Selina to call him as she leaves, which gives the impression that Selina seduces, not kidnaps him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32F4:F80:5D27:5C65:2788:2480 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See the talk page archives. DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)