Jump to content

Talk:Batman Begins/Archive 4

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

Critical analysis

  • Wood, Aylish (2007). "Pixel Visions: Digital Intermediates and Micromanipulations of the Image". Film Criticism. 32 (1): 72–94. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This article has an interesting analysis about how the film's universe is shaped around the character psychology (of Bruce Wayne). Just leaving a note here in case anyone wants to tackle this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I actually have access to this via my very limited research database. I will take a look. Gary King (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

FA drive

I would like to establish a drive for this article to reach FA status and to become Featured Article of the Day for the first day of wide release for The Dark Knight (July 18, 2008 in the US right now). I've revised the to-do list at the top of this talk page with issues that need addressing, but other suggestions are welcome. Personally, this seems like a weak Good Article, so there needs to be some expansion in terms of real-world context. I am also wondering if anyone else thinks that the Plot section could be trimmed some more. Also, considering that there are seven non-free images in this article, we may want to cut down on images, specifically the ones in the Plot section. Also, I was thinking that we could replace the image in Cast section with one like this to reflect the physical training Bale underwent. It would tie into the existing prose about Bale working out. Any other suggestions or ideas for the article, feel free to contribute here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a listen to this when I have time. It looks legit. Alientraveller 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I found an article in Animation Magazine in a database that talked about the visual effects for creating Gotham City. Here's a sample: "When we see the sun rise over Gotham City from Bruce Wayne's plane as he returns home, the camera sweeps across half a million buildings that span 40 virtual miles. It's a 100% digital shot; all the buildings are fully 3D. But, even though all the buildings in the big aerial sunrise shot are digital, each one is based on a real building. That's true throughout the film." This will help substantiate the Gotham City picture, which I've always thought was weak on fair use rationale due to lack of direct description. I'll try to incorporate information from the magazine article into this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm going through some of the reviews that were in the section I dumped in my sandbox, trying to see what is usable. Alien expressed an interest in keeping the Morrison bit, but the only thing he says about the film is: It's not all O'Neil/Adams though; I was influenced by the animated series portrayal of Batman, by Christian Bale's definitive performance in Batman Begins and by Mike Barr's '80s Batman stories with Alan Davis, which swam bravely against the prevailing trends at a time when the grim 'n' gritty current was at its strongest.—That's all. I really hate to just use a one word critique of a film. I mean, he doesn't really go into why he though Bale's performance was "definitive". It just seems like someone you would use on a DVD box or a tv spot. Anyone else?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would make that review a lesser priority for now. See how much critical reaction you can flesh out with the other reviews, and if Morrison's review can add anything, do so. If not, I'd discard it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So, since the film only won 4 awards (ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards, Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA, Hollywood Film Festival, MTV Movie Awards), should we probably think about mentioning nominations?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the Academy and BAFTA award nominations are worth mentioning, but I'm not so sure about the rest. (Look at the awards page at IMDb, of course.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate just using AA and BAFTA because it's like saying "those others just are not worth it," when to the people that run them, they are. VES Awards, Golden Reels, Hugo Awards, and some others are worthy enough if they are won, so I have to assume they should be mentioned if they are nominated. Obviously, I wouldn't think that we should include such things like Golden Trailers or World Soundtrack Awards, as neither has to do with the film itself. I'm curious if we should list something like Teen Choice Awards or People's Choice, as it shows an obvious reaction by fans so we can avoid the usual good faith edits of "fans loved/hated this film," but, I have no idea how the films are actually nominated. I don't know if the fans are the ones that nominate and vote, or if the people that run the show nominate and the fans vote. If they are nominated by the organizations, then it is less significant IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could check to see if any of the other awards have well-developed articles (not just stubs). That may be a ticket to help reflect their prominence. You could also do rough Google searches and measure the results against each other, pick the awards with the bigger hits. I wouldn't suggest too many more nomination mentions, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's just it, if we limit awards to what was won (and even mentioned AA and BAFTA) that section would be too weak to be a subsection, kind of like how the box office info is weak as a subsection. I'm thinking they may need to go together, like Halloween (1978 film)#Reception did, although we wouldn't have an "influence" subsection, to the "criticism" subsection, and as you pointed out once before, it may not be good to have 1 subsection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with having just one section. I implemented that at Road to Perdition#Reception because the box office performance and awards/nominations subsections were meager compared to the actual criticism. I preferred box office performance, criticism, then awards/nominations -- it seems to flow well enough for me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of what I had in mind. I'll see what I can do after I finish the review section. I'll see if I can find anything about the DVD sales, or any other figures for the film. If you any let me know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

I have found so much information on Bale that I think some restructuring for the cast section is in order. We should lose the bullet points and just write it flowingly and naturally. Perhaps we can merge minor cast members into paragraphs too. Alientraveller 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this; real-world context about this film's central figure would definitely be encyclopedic. We could have a separate prose paragraph about the villains. (Maybe we can bring in specifics from Writing and leave alone the broader concepts?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Resources

Good news -- I was originally looking for Cinefantastique online some time ago (for some other film), and they didn't seem to have anything available here at my university. Today, though, I found out that they actually have the periodicals in my main library. There is coverage for Batman Begins in the July 2005, January 2006, and May 2006 issues. Since I can't check out the magazines, I'll try to go in there with a laptop and see what useful content I can find. Does anyone know if they have access to Screen International? That's another magazine with potential content... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • BOND, Jeff: Anatomy lesson: Building Metropolis / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.38 n.3 , May 2006, p.14-17, English, illus / Hollywood production designers talk about translating comic art into three dimensions for the cinema.
  • BOND, Jeff: Film: Batman Begins / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.9 , January 2006, p.20, English, illus / Cast and crew speak briefly about BATMAN BEGINS.
  • FORDHAM, Joe: Starting Over / Cinefex n.103 , October 2005, p.90-96,101-112,118, English, illus / Details of the special effects used in BATMAN BEGINS.
  • PIZZELLO, Stephen: Renovating the Batcave / American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.Suppl , October 2005, p.16-18, English, illus / Cinematographer Wally Pfister outlines the lighting strategy used for the scenes set in Bruce Wayne's underground cave for the film BATMAN BEGINS.
  • MUGLESTON, Robert: Dynamic duos / ScriptWriter (1475-5157) n.24 , September 2005, p.48-51, English, illus / Article exploring issues of identity and duality in David S. Goyer's screenplay for BATMAN BEGINS.
  • SLOANE, Judy: Bat Out of Hell / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.326 , August 2005, p.36-40,42,44, English, illus / Director Christopher Nolan plus cast members talk about making BATMAN BEGINS.
  • KAY, Jeremy: Duets for one / Screen International (0307-4617) n.1507 , 08 July 2005, p.6, English, illus / Two pairs of composers explain their reason for working on the film scores of BATMAN BEGINS (Hanz Zimmer and James Newton Howard) and SIN CITY (Graeme Revell and John Debney with Robert Rodriguez).
  • WALKER, Jonathan: BATMAN BEGINS / Film Review (0957-1809) n.658 , July 2005, p.64-67, English, illus / Actor Christian Bale also comments on the making of the film.
  • NEWMAN, Kim: Cape fear / Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.15 n.7 , July 2005, p.18-21, English, illus / Looks at the cinematic creative lineage of the BATMAN franchise as Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS takes him back to his origins.
  • JORDAN, Sean & GROSS, Edward: A Knight in Gotham / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.4 , July 2005, p.22-31,34-35, English, illus / On BATMAN BEGINS, including sidebar interviews with Christian Bale, Gary Oldman and Cillian Murphy.
  • REYNOLDS, Simon: Escape from the Batcave / Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.4 , July 2005, p.32-33,67, English, illus / On the long, complicated development process for BATMAN BEGINS.
  • SPELLING, Ian: Batman Flies Again / StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.70 , July 2005, p.36-42,44, English, illus / Screenwriter David S. Goyer talks about working on BATMAN BEGINS, with sidebars from Christian Bale.
  • SMITH, Adam: The Original American Psycho / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.74-80,82,84,87, English, illus / A behind-the-scenes look at the making of BATMAN BEGINS, including interviews with director Christopher Nolan and actor Christian Bale.
  • SMITH, Adam: The Scarecrow: Cillian Murphy Stirs Up Cape Fears... / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.77, English, illus / A brief interview with actor Cillian Murphy about his role in the film BATMAN BEGINS.
  • SMITH, Adam: The Batsuit Stats / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.78, English, illus / An examination of the different materials used to make the bat suit in BATMAN BEGINS with comments by designer Day Murch.
  • SMITH, Adam: Alfred The Butler: Sir Michael Caine Is Batman's Batman / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.79, English, illus / A brief interview with Sir Michael Caine about his role in the film BATMAN BEGINS.
  • O'HARA, Helen: Ra's Al Ghul: Ken Watanabe Unleashed... / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.80, English, illus / A brief interview with actor Ken Watanabe about his role in the film BATMAN BEGINS.
  • GRAYDON, Danny: A Little Knight Music: A New Dynamic Duo... / Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.87, English, illus / A brief interview with composers James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer about their collaboration together on the score for BATMAN BEGINS.
  • SCHILLING, Mark: World premieres: The importance of being eastern / Screen International (0307-4617) n.1506 , 24 June 2005, p.4,6, English, illus / Looks at the reasons for holding US blockbuster premieres like WAR OF THE WORLDS and BATMAN BEGINS in Japan.
  • BATMAN BEGINS / Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.58 , June 2005, p.6-59, English, illus / Special feature on BATMAN BEGINS, charting the history of Batman and including interviews with Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, George Clooney & Gary Oldman, & Batmobile collection
  • RUSSO, Tom: Caped Fear / Premiere (0894-9263) v.18 n.9 , June 2005, p.66-72,135, English, illus / Discusses the making of BATMAN BEGINS with comments by actor Christian Bale and director Christopher Nolan. Also a note on Batman unrealised projects.
  • PIZZELLO, Stephen: Batman Takes Wing / American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.86 n.6 , June 2005, p.36-40,42-44,46-48,50-54,56,58-59, English, illus / Director of photography Wally Pfister explains the detailed technical considerations need to bring BATMAN BEGINS to the screen.
  • MAGID, Ron: A Miniature Gotham / American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.86 n.6 , June 2005, p.50, English / Visual-effects co-supervisors Dan Glass and Janek Sirrs discuss the use of miniatures to depict some of the action in Gotham city in BATMAN BEGINS.
  • MOTSKIN, Yon: Batman Begins / Creative Screenwriting (1084-8665) v.12 n.3 , May 2005, p.22-23, English, illus / Co-writer David S. Goyer talks about his work on BATMAN BEGINS. A brief extract from the script appears on p.76 of this issue.
  • Coming Soon: The Big Picture: Batman Begins / Empire n.190 , April 2005, p.8-9, English, illus / Brief preview of BATMAN BEGINS with comments from actor Christian Bale.
  • GROVE, David: Batman begins / Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.55 , December 2004, p.198-202,204-206,208,210,212,214-216, English, illus / Mini-dossier on Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS including comments from Christian Bale on his character; writer David Goyer on adapting the comic book's script; Michael Caine, Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy on their respective role.
  • GOODRIDGE, Mike: Bale morphs towards Oscar / Screen International (0307-4617) n.1477 , 19 November 2004, p.15, English, illus / Christian Bale comments on changing his body shape for The MACHINIST and BATMAN BEGINS.
  • McCABE, Joseph: Dark Knight begins / StarBurst (0955-114X) n.315 , October 2004, p.70-71, English, illus / David Goyer talks about making BATMAN BEGINS.
  • Intermission: Batman speaks! / Empire n.179 , May 2004, p.48-49, English, illus / Profile of actor Christian Bale including a brief interview where Bale describes losing weight for the role of Trevor Reznik in The MACHINIST, and comments on his most recent project, playing Batman in Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS

References from Film Index International. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I struck out used sources. Alientraveller 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception section

As anyone that may have picked up from reading this current discussion, I have been working up the reception section in a sandbox. Currently, Erik and I have been discussion the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes' percentages. There has been recent movement to remove them as unencyclopedic. If you wish, you can see the discussion Erik and I had at User talk:Erik#BB recep and User talk:Bignole#BB review. It basically boils down to whether we think the statistical value of said percentages is significant enough to warrant mentioning. I have gone ahead and include Rotten Tomatoes' percentages in the work-up, but shall await further comments about whether or not to keep it, and any criticism with my work-up in general. Also on the table is the inclusion of Metacritic's ratings. They are also mentioned in the dicussion between Erik and I. Anyway, please take a look at the new reception section here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate the points made in the discussion between me and Bignole, the pros seem to be that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic provide a rule of thumb to gauge the balance of reviews. Both review aggregators are competitors, hence it seems appropriate to have them side by side for comparison. However, they are commercial enterprises, so their encyclopedic value could be questioned. If the aggregators are not mentioned in the body of the article, I am sure that they would be appropriate as External links. I'm just wondering if they need to be cited, as it may not be completely encyclopedic in the scheme of things. I am leaning toward their inclusion in the most brief manner, and I think that statistically speaking, there are enough reviews from both aggregators to provide an adequate rule of thumb as to the film's critical reaction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Bignole for providing excellent content for the Critical reaction section that dissects the film in both positive and negative lights, as well as from secondary perspectives. This is a terrific step toward making Batman Begins a Featured Article. Nice work, Bigs! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is of any relevance but the BFI's Sight and Sound magazine has quite a good review here. It also has a succinct plot summary that can be used as a source (I don't know what people here think of citing secondary sources for plot summaries). Brad (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! We don't generally cite secondary sources for the plot summary since the film is verifiable to all readers for the details. We could see if the review can be implemented, though -- we don't usually use film magazine reviews, and this would be a good change of pace. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the BFI certainly qualifies as a reliable source! I just came across it while searching for Insomnia stuff. Brad (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebooting this collaboration drive (April 2008)

I'd like to help out with the FA drive for this article. First of all, what does everyone think this article still needs in order to reach FA? It appears that some sections are fairly short, and could either be expanded or merged with other sections, such as "Themes". Gary King (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Here are some things I noticed, as I have previously helped The Filmmaker get the Star Wars film articles to FA;
  • The reception section shows that most reviewers praised the film, 84% positive, but you would never know it, as the reception section proceeds to trash the movie for the most part. We should shoot for balance at minimum, by trimming some of the negative and adding more of, say, Eberts glowing review.
  • say a bit more about what the actual plot of the movie is in the lead, and in fact, many of the Star Wars articles have a middle paragraph on the plot, which would also be appropriate.
  • Another case of super generic image rationales, be specific as to why it is needed and what exactly it demonstrates.
  • There are several deadlinks and at least one citation needed
  • The special effects needs to be cited and expanded by about two-three sentences.
  • wikilink all the publishers in the references
  • check all the references for reliability; make sure no IMDB because it was determined they do not screen some of the trivia and other information they use.
  • there should probably be a mention of the merchandise associated with the movie and the marketing of the film.
  • As always, do that and copyedit it to get brilliant prose, so use several pairs of eyes and you should have a shiny FA star in your future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I disagree with your opinion of the reception section (biasely, admittedly). When I wrote it I chose to capture everything the reviewers were saying which included both a positive and a negative criticism of the film. You cannot make things bloatedly postive or negative. If you read the sentences word for word you'll see that they include things that the reviewers liked, as well as things they didn't like. We can't be nit-picky and ignore negative criticism just because they happened to give the film an overall postive rating. We're supposed to be neutral, and that doesn't necessarily mean have extreme positive and extreme negative reviews evenly balanced. I think it's misleading to say that the section is "trashes the movie", because it just happened to be that the first sentence of each paragraph happens to start with something negative; that's easily rectified, if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that is the issue... perhaps you could change it up a bit then :) Also, change my comment to this: Roger Ebert rarely effusively praised a movie in my experience as a dedicated reader, and as he trashed all the previous batman movies, a bit more of his thoughts on it could be worthwhile :) It is well written, it just seemed negative in tone. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I swapped some positions and broke a paragraph out on its own, but I don't know what else do give Ebert. He already has a rather large, two sentence section, and I dont' want to add too much and give undue weight to a single critic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this then, look over his review, and see if anything could be swapped or if this one is good the way it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one that wrote it; it's unlikely I'll find fault with my own selection. It's probably better that someone else who doesn't have a connection to the material see if there was something better that could have been pulled from his review. There's plenty of things in his review, but we cannot mention everything he says - I could fill an entire paragraph alone with everything he talks about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess so... I'll post it here Ebert Review... Gary, you want to take a look? Any other comments of Eberts that could be switched with what we have, or do we have the most salient ones already? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me now, although I personally want to focus more on other aspects of the article such as Development because I'm more of a technical person and am not as good with writing content based on other people's opinions. Gary King (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well anyway, I hope the rest of my review helps. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

← Anyone still around here? Anyways, I'm taking this baby all the way. Gary King (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely too late for The Dark Knight, unfortunately, but better later than never. Gary King (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bale quotes

Some nice quotes here about how Bale approached the character - might be worth integrating. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FA drive (July 2008)

Rebooting this. A few issues have been brought up.

I unlinked dates because as of recently they are no longer required per MOS (the expert to talk about this would be User:Tony1). There has been many lengthy discussions about them, but the gist of it is that it's because they are causing too many unnecessary blue links. However, I'm okay with them being reverted here, especially with so many other dedicated editors working on this article that may not be used to it. Just for an example, though, I'm currently working on Unabomber and have unlinked the dates there. Which is why I also used accessmonthday and accessyear, because they unlink the accessdates. There's currently a discussion at Template talk:Cite web to make dates automatically unlink with the dateformat=ymd option set.

Regarding reliable sites, there still needs to be a reason as to why they would be reliable for interviews, etc. I think the question is whether they really conducted the interview, etc. I suppose. For some of them, I provided another source that had the exact same interview, and they were newspapers and such, so perhaps we could switch to those? The person who commented on the reliability of some of the references, User:Ealdgyth, while perhaps not completely familiar with all the reliable film sources, is an expert reference-checker and she can definitely help out on this. I made her aware of the references discussion at the peer review so hopefully we'll hear from her soon.

Also, I hope you don't mind that I will step through my diffs and at least re-add the changes that I think are acceptable (like expanding the lead). Anyways, I'm hoping we can all work together and bring this to FA status soon! Cheers. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I got opposed during the Transformers FAC for not linking each day. However, I'd like to note I've written down info from the DVD and will seek ways to implement them. Alientraveller (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, linked dates became optional a few weeks ago I believe. I agree with unlinked dates because there's no point in having so many blue links; the only important thing is that the date format for all dates stays consistent. I would love to see the references replaced with the DVD! Gary King (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, article is going well methinks. Me likey likey so far. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I have time, I can retrieve print sources from Access World News and LexisNexis Academic to implement into the article. Obviously, there are quite a few other resources shown in discussions above that could be implemented, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what more information are you planning on adding? Gary King (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever is not already in this article. :) Not all print sources have online versions, and I will probably search in the time frame between the beginning of production and the film's release (the latter being saturated with reviews and requiring more effort to filter through). Both databases that I can access will contain reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good. As you've noticed, I'm working diligently on the article, hoping that the article will be ready soon :) Gary King (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Preceding Movie

Batman Begins was never preceded by Batman & Robin. They restarted the franchise. So change that!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdktdktdk (talk • contribs)

It has been removed. Likewise, we don't link Hulk in The Incredible Hulk's infobox. Alientraveller (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Should Casino Royale (2006 film) have Die Another Day in its Infobox if this is the case? Gary King (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not our call to make here. Ask over there, but it would probably be yes, unless they have citation that CR is an official restart to the series. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Continuity is flexible in the Bond franchise's case, unlike the differentiation between the 1990s and 2000s Batman films. Alientraveller (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Still irrelevant to this section, for this page nad these films. I was telling the editor to go ask there abotu those films. ThuranX (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The infobox template says "series", it does not say "direct continuity". This "deletion" of previous films like they don't matter is not very neutral minded. The fact remains that they are all part of the Batman film series, regardless of whether one ignores the other. Halloween III ignores Halloween I & II, in fact it has nothing to do with any other film in that series, but it's still part of the Halloween film series regardless of whether or not it has any ties to previous or succeeding films. This is why the "followed by" and "preceded by" is about chronological release, and not continuity, because continuity would start placing films in odd orders. Freddy vs. Jason would have to be placed in front of Jason X, even though it was released years afterward. Better yet, we'd have to put Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning in front of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film), because it's technically a "prequel". If you're going to base things on continuity, then you cannot pick and choose. This is why we list things based on their release in the series, and ignore the aspect of continuity that plays a role in "where they fall", whether into a whole new continuity or simply backtracking on old stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Otherwise, there will be too many debates about whether one of those movies actually belongs to a series, etc. I think the preceded_by should be re-added. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't have random interpretations across film series either. Otherwise there will be debates all across the film community about why Batman Begins doesn't have Batman & Robin before it, while Film X is forced to have Film Z in front of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; some films are bound to have debates as to whether the events in the film take place before or after another film in the series. Sometimes they even overlap in events. It makes sense that the order of the films in the series is dictated by their release dates. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So what are you saying here? This film should, or should not, be listed as being the next in the series after Batman 4? Because we've got unambiguous statements that Nolan's films represent a new series, with a new continuity. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as Nolan is concerned this is "his" series, but Wikipedia is not based on his opinion or standards. It's ALL part of the single Batman film series, whether it reboots continuity or not. The "followed by" has always been about what film was released "next", not what film comes noext in continuity. That would throw a wrench in a lot of film franchise articles, especially ones that have multiple continuities (like Halloween or Superman).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So, then we should fix the Batman 1989 to link to batman 1966, and that to batman 1949, and that to batman 1943? ThuranX (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as long as those previous ones were feature films (though, I don't believe they all were).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Every one had a theatrical run. If we can't determine that different series deserve different 'preceded and followed' things, then who are we to decide which thatrical runs are sufficient? This mess really needs to go to WP:FILM. ThuranX (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It does...or the infobox template talk page (since that is the page that actually discusses that information).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the article (not that his proves anything), "Batman, also known as Batman: The Movie, is a 1966 film spin-off of the popular Batman television series, and was the first full-length theatrical adaptation of the DC Comics character." - which would mean that the 1949 film wasn't a feature film (that would mean, that it was probably only a seriel if it was in the theaters).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I took this over to WP:FILM to get more community input. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a successor of Batman & Robin. The 1960s Batman is not a predecessor of Tim Burton's Batman, so it is the same for this deal. DarthBotto talk•cont 14:38, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't precede the movie because Batman & Robin is after Batman: The movie. The Joker obviously didn't kill Bruce's parents like in Batman: the movie, and Batman had no part in making the Joker who he is. (Like in Batman: the movie.) Two-Face's "bad half" was scarred by acid (as mentioned in Batman Forever), while in the later "Dark Knight" his face was burned by exposure to a flammable liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.210.9 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to fight over it but, I am inclined to agree with the idea that these are part of the same series. IMDB states an alternative title to the film is Batman 5 implying that this is part of the original series. Oldag07 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
IMDB isn't the most reliable source for info. However, I am inclined to agree with those that state that Batman Begins is part of the same film franchise as Batman and Robin. It is a reboot, which is basically like a retcon for things. Furthermore, I believe that Warner Bros/DC feels like it is one film franchise, though I can't give any specific citations where they state this. It's just the impression that I get. Whether that has any encyclopedic value is up for interpretation. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to editors

The release of The Dark Knight has affected the rental of Batman Begins; see sources like MarketWatch. May be worth seeking out additional sources and including. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Format

This is no beginning of a discussion as I am not going to enter into a discussion here. My experience with the apparent WP:OWNnership of this article and with an obsession with procedure even regarding the most basic format which SHOULD BE UNCONTROVERSIAL was simply too bad. I simply wanted to give the little I could to make this article a little better but I only got insults, reverting and a ridiculous block.

But still, I will not leave this article in its sorry state but state the problem here - we will see whether those that reverted supposedly simply because there was no discussion on talk (again, quite a strange idea) will do anything about it.

There is a cast section. Now I don't mind whether every item is formated as a bullet point (as common in cast section - but these usually do not have that much information) or whether the are simply formatted as simple paragraphs. Since names are in bold print, structure would be visible one way or the other.

But - and that's the main point - it has to be consistent. Right now what we have is:

Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne / Batman: A billionaire ....
Director Nolan said ...
Since he had lost ...
Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth: The trusted butler ...
Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard: In reality ...
Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes: A childhood friend ...
Gary Oldman as Sgt. James Gordon: One of the few ...
Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane / The Scarecrow: A psychopharmacologist ...
Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox: A high-ranking Wayne Enterprises employee ...

Either all items should be bullet points or none.

A related issue: if the section is structured in bullet points, all three paragraphs on Bruce Wayne/Batman have to come under one bullet point.

To cast light on this problem I will tag the section for cleanup until it is solved.

I will do no further but brush the dust of this article from my shoes. Str1977 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I combined together the minor parts. [1] Alientraveller (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That's better - only now this article has no cast section (despite this section's name). But that's not my problem. Str1977 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It's more harmful than I thought. The article now says that Rutger Hauer is the CEO etc. Str1977 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of villain

One more thing, as I see that this too has been reverted: the name of villain of the film, as far as the plot is concerned, is Henri Ducard and not Ra's al Ghul. Ducard is the guy played by Liam Neeson, Ra's the one played by Ken Watanabe. Saying that Batman fights with Ra's makes it seem that he is battling with the Watanabe role when he is not. Str1977 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But Ducard is a fake name for Ra's. The reader understands that. Alientraveller (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Alientraveller.ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Ducard is Ras' real, civic name and for most of the film he is known as Henri Ducard. Ras' is his secret name but for most of the film we think Ras is someone else. What do the credits at the end call Liam Neeson's role? That should be essential. Str1977 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Although, in the plot description, it should be "Ducard" until he reveals himself as Ra's, and then he gets called Ra's. Cast section should be "Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul." As for other areas, if it's something said or revealed before the film came out, it should be "Ducard." Anything after the movie came out I'd say use discretion. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep? This is the complete opposite. He should be called Ducard all through for clarity's sake. That has nothing to do with when the film came out. Str1977 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The end credits give Liam Neeson's role as "Ducard" and Watanabe's as "Ra's al Ghul". Str1977 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And hes' discussed that way in Out-Of-Universe sections. In the plot, he is Ra's, admits to the deception, and thus should be called Ra's. Wikipedia's not concerned with spoilers. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Again this has nothing to do with spoilers.
The deception is not that Ducard is not Ducard. He is Ducard. The deception is that HE is the actual head of the league of shadows. Is he anywhere called Ra's? Does Batman adress him as Ra's?
But I cannot and will not force you to improve the article. If you want it limit its quality, so be it. Str1977 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the movie? Bruce clearly realizes that Ra's hid under the name of Ducard to conceal his true identity. Ra's is named as the leader of the League of Shadows, and Ducard admits he is the leader, therefore that he is Ra's. If he's listed in the credits as Ducard, then that would be because that's what he was known as for most of the film and the fact that he wasn't outright addressed as Ra's. But it's made very clear that Ducard is Ra's. This is not "limiting the article of quality." What it is is making it the most complete possible, letting the reader know that Ducard is Ra's the whole time but didn't admit it until near the end. Do you REALLY need them to spell it out? If you were Bruce Wayne in the film, wouldn't you understand that Ducard was the real Ra's once that scene at the dinner party took place? Heck, thinking about this, this might just be obvious. And I was saying "Yep" in response to Alientraveler and ThuranX. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen the movie several times recently. And once again after my last comment.
I must disagree with that notion that "Ras hid under the name of Ducard". At least according to the film. Things might be different if one considers Ras a being that has lived for centuries (as related by his WP article) - then Ducard would clearly be an assumed cover name. But the movie doesn't indicate this. Ducard could just as well be his real, civil name and Ra's the title of League's leader (which of course is Ducard at the time of the movie).
" If he's listed in the credits as Ducard, then that would be because that's what he was known as for most of the film and the fact that he wasn't outright addressed as Ra's." - That was exactly my point - Ducard is his general name in the movie, despite the fact that he was revelead as Ras.
"But it's made very clear that Ducard is Ra's. ... Do you REALLY need them to spell it out?" - You are riding the wrong horse. I never doubted or claimed that Ducard is not Ras all the way. Of course he is. The question is how to best present the plot of the film.
"What it is is making it the most complete possible, letting the reader know that Ducard is Ra's the whole time but didn't admit it until near the end." - Then why is he first called Ducard in the plot? Because he is introduced that way. The most natural thing would be to keep on referring to him by that name.
However, I have somewhat changed my mind after my last viewing the movie and after reading the WP article on Ras. Since Ras happens to be a super villain (akin to, say, the Penguin) using that name is more acceptable. However, then things must be presented in a clearer fashion, without confusing the reader by suddenly switching identies. In other words, we must not introduce him as Ducard in the first place but as someone who called himself Ducard.
Otherwise it is "limiting the article of quality". Str1977 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I was under the impression that you were disputing that Ducard was not Ra's. Sorry if I came across a little strong there. I like what you're proposing. I do think you're right, that Ducard is his real name and Ra's is the name of the leader of the League, but since we're not told, that would just be OR. I will say that I would prefer calling him Ra's after the "reveal" because he is the main Batman villain in the film, and a classic enemy of Batman in the comics and it's important that the reader understands that and that's it is Batman fighting Ra's, and not fighting Ducard. I do see your point, though. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Main contributors

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight#Good articles, I noticed that a single editor is not credited for their work. I know Alientraveller contributed with a lot of work, but who else (if anyone) did? Wildroot (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this page, then the page statistics are here, but the number of edits from an editor doesn't constitute the amount of information actually added.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark Knight Mention

Any reason there is no mention of TDK? 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is. It is referred to when discussing the sequel. TDK has it's own article, though, so not much more is needed. The TDK article has the information on the work done between BB and TDK. ThuranX (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Batman Begins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a list of characters

How about creating list of characters for both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (if possible all Batman movies)? Badjsp (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have the important characters detailed in each article. Such charts are cumbersome and sloppy, and do not move an article towards GA and FA status. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Silly Premise

  • setting aside that this article is such gushily overwritten fanboyese it reads like one of the five name-checked Warner brothers wrote it himself, has no-one thought to question the physics of the final driving conceit? if you had a machine that would vaporise water, you'd have no need of a neurotoxin, since all the people in gotham, being 90% water, would be vaporised too.
  • is it impossible to be a scientist first and a bat-fan second? i shake my head. --86.173.89.4 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This film was never claimed to be hard science fiction. And what would you say, that "real Wayne Enterprises Microwave Emitters generate microwaves that can't be focussed."? You might as well edit the Transformers article to include scathing critiques on the robot mechanics. Not being able to suspend belief for something that is partially fantasy is dare I say even more fanboyish than being unquestioning of its science. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Blatant political correctness

like in this passage: "...Underground railroad secretly transporting freed slaves to the North..." or some black folks put in strategic places - something should be written about this pwjbbb (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, You would need a credible external source that has cited this over original research. While not wishing to cteate a discussion board, the presence of a "secret cave" where people can be hidden lends itself perfectly to the historical backdrop in the timeframe of the house (I cannot at this time thnk of another part of American history to use). As for actors like Colin McFarlane and Morgan Freeman, I'm sure most would agree that their ability is such that they don't need to feed on token gestures becuase of their colour! Dainamo (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Preamble

"eventually grossing over $372 million worldwide... grossed $372,710,015 in worldwide box office sales"

Is the repetition necessary?

Simon Marchese (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MA in Batman begins

Why does it state "Ninjutsu" when the MA in the film is Keysi? Shouldn't it mention that although the characters in the film refer to and claim to be practising ninjutsu, the combative techniques used in fight scenes are KFM? If ninjutsu was used, wouldn't either Bujinkan, Genbukan or Jinenkan experts have been involved in fight choreography or as consultants on the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.121.212 (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

screenplay and story credits

never tried to fix a page before. credits are wrong. they are backwards. screenplay: nolan/goyer. story: goyer. thx 208.54.38.229 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC) tracy ward.

J.J. Abrams did not direct this movie.

In the article's side bar it lists J.J. Abrams as the director. That is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.131.217 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 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)

Well... I'd be more inclined to something like List of Batman television series characters than List of A Nightmare on Elm Street characters. But either way it would be something that would not support:
  • Plot points/summaries except in the most minimal manner.
  • Rumor or speculation from dubious sources.
  • Editor/fan spec, theory, and/or OR.
All of which would severely limit a "John Blake" section.
- J Greb (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

{copied from The Dark Knoght Rises talk page...)

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)
I can't see what a list of Nolan Trilogy characters could be beyond lots of plot like the List of Transformers characters is or List of Scarface characters was/maybe still is. The characters only exist in these films and everything they do is in the plot sections and any details about those characters exists in their character entry in those articles, relevant to the film article being viewed. A list of characters will just duplicate all of that potentially a third time since many of the characters have their own individual articles where the information probably exists as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Then how do you answer about Smallville's list of characters? They've made it, despite there are already articles covering Superman, Lois Lane, etc.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well it's a ten or eleven season show, so there is a lot more ground and a lot more characters with a lot more plot and background information to cover, and the characters with existing articles are very brief and link to those articles, which would defeat your stated intent to expand on Blake's character outside of the Robin article. You'd basically have "Film article" > "list of characters" > "John Blake with immediate link to Robin", so its exactly like it is now, but with an extra step involved and information duplicated across three articles. All of the main characters have their own articles and most of them recur across multiple films, so having a singular list offers very little, if any gain, IMO. As far as I can see, every billed character on each article has their own article, even somehow, Rachel Dawes (Which frankly looks like it needs deleting, its just plot).Darkwarriorblake (talk)
It is a 10 seasons show, which is still continue in a comic book format chronicling Clark Kent's beginning as Superman, titled Smallville Season 11.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"It [Smallville] is a 10 seasons show..." you can stop the comparison right there. Films and television shows are handled differently. Shows wind up with either a lot more material across scores of articles, making a centralized character list a place to nutshell the characters, or very limited material on the show page and episode list articles, making a character list a necesity to round out the information. Films and film franchises do not follow those models. - J Greb (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the characters are from the comics, so they either have their own pages or are listed somewhere else, so I don't really see why a new page is necessary. it would only have to include characters that originated in the trilogy, which there aren't that many.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I personally feel that a list of characters wouldn't serve any purpose. No single character is developed enough to have any useful information outside that listed on the film pages. There is not enough confusion, what with there being only 3 films, to warrant a repository of character developments or backstories. drewmunn (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling that it may be cannibalised by the list-laundry task-force, as nearly everything that's worthy of a list could be written as prose. It's most likely that the list would end up seriously repeating content of both a Nolan film article, and the three constituents. drewmunn (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, just like to clarify that I "fixed" the link because the redirect didn't work for me when I checked it. Don't mind either one as long as the link works (which it apparently does on the computer I'm on right now). DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The original link redirected to the one you substituted in; I reverted to your link when it was changed back to the original because your version pointed to an existing page rather than to another redirect. As far as I'm aware, that's proper procedure. drewmunn (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Wiki procedure is that linking to redirects is completely acceptable and redirect links should be not be changed to a direct link. From: WP:NOTBROKEN. Is this what you are referring to? Reatlas (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems I'm mistaken! Thanks for pointing that out. drewmunn (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Writing/directing controversy

To follow-up on this edit:

(cur | prev) 06:07, 22 April 2013‎ Sonicdrewdriver (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (76,055 bytes) (-32)‎ . . (Undid revision 551578165 by Jonas42 (talk) as I said, writers do not get top credit. You may move it to the first paragraph, but not the first sentence; director is more important.) (undo)

I'm not sure on what this user is basing the idea that the director of a film is more important. Is anyone able to provide justification that doesn't just repeat the same mindless assumption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.10.70 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

'tis not "mindless assumption", it's convention. See the Film Lead guideline: "If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the [first] paragraph." It states that there is no requirement for either the director or writer in the first sentence, but the director and leading stars should be identified in the first paragraph. Writers should only be identified there if they are notable. Also, following standard notability in film crediting, above the line credits go director, screenwriters, producers.... Also, see most other film articles on Wikipedia, which you will also find follow this convention. drewmunn talk 06:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The director generally comes first and in this particular case, Nolan is massively more famous for directing the Batman series than writing it, and more famous than Goyer's involvement period. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, although I know him more for running a global network of transport solutions. Heh heh heh. Seriously though, I don't think I've seen a single article in WikiProject Film that doesn't list director before writer, except in indie films where it's all one person doing everything, then it's chronologically listed. drewmunn talk 07:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
So, mindless convention then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.120.11 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It is in no way mindless. There is purpose behind it, in that it is the director's art. You would not list the paint manufacturer before the name of the artist in an article about a portrait, would you? Please look into things before branding them mindless. Our decisions here reflect real world usage, and this in turn is grounded in logic. Believe me, it's something I've studied. drewmunn talk 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Studied in what capacity? I have a degree in film studies, and worked for years in the industry in both a development and production capacity. Mimicking the "real world usage" is a reasonable excuse, although in no way is the real world usage grounded in logic. Wikipedia could be a leader in attributing credit accurately and fairly instead of perpetuating misguided standards. "It's the director's art" is a meaningless phrase. No one who has worked on a film for even a day could honestly claim that a movie is the vision of one single person, especially if that person was just a director and therefore not necessarily involved in pre-production (writing and casting) or post-production (editing and scoring). It's an absurd notion that has become conventional wisdom for a few reasons: 1) auteur theory, after being proposed BY DIRECTORS, caught on with other directors, who were more than happy to claim additional credit. The personality types associated with writing and editing vs. directing mean that credit was available for the taking. 2) auteur theory caught on with academics, for whom it was easier to dissect frame composition, montage, and other short digestible bits more associated with the director than with other positions (although even this is often a fallacy ... an editor might be primarily responsible for a montage, a cinematographer might be responsible for a bit of framing or tracking shot), and harder to dissect things that are realm of the writer (narrative structure, character development). Those latter attributes may not be uniquely filmic, and so are of less interest to a film academic, and are also far-ranging and complex, and hard to talk about in a film class. 3) Popular film journals tend to write about production rather than pre- or post-production, simply because a film set with actors and sets and stunt people and pyrotechnics is a lot more exciting than watching a guy sit at a computer or in front of an editing machine. 4) The "director is paramount" idea became self-perpetuating. Because people were convinced that directors had more influence, pretty soon they actually did. Which is not to say that even now a director should get top-credit at the expense of the other creative people who work on a film. Comparing a screenwriter -- the person who originated the story, created the characters (often, if not in this case) and structured the narrative -- to a paint manufacturer is not just insulting, it's inane. Go read the screenplay for Chinatown and tell me that 50% of the work wasn't already complete at that point. Go read the script for Network, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotlight Mind. For Unforgiven, or The Princess Bride. It requires willful ignorance to suggest in any of those cases that the director is worthy of a mention in the first sentence while the writer is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.120.11 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with mentioning the writer in the first paragraph of the lead section. However, as you have indicated, the director is highly recognized. Wikipedia has a policy of having a neutral point of view, and in this case, it is common to recognize this film as being directed by Christopher Nolan. The writing credit is not as recognized. You said, "Wikipedia could be a leader in attributing credit accurately and fairly instead of perpetuating misguided standards." I hate to say it, but by its very nature, Wikipedia cannot play that contrarian role. Change has to come from the rest of the world, and we will update to change with new perspectives. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have spent a long time studying it to ensure that it's right on Wikipedia. I do have a Media Studies A Level (not that it counts for much), and I live with a filmmaker, but it's mostly through the fact that I've researched this particular issue. It's not so much personality types anyway, it's the way things are built in the industry, because the director is an artist. The writer does a lot to build the backbone, but the director is what makes the film. As you said, director's now have a lot of power. As such, we credit them. For an example, you can reshoot, line for line, a screenplay, and see how differently it comes out. drewmunn talk 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2013-06-01 edit war

This section is devoted to resolving a conflict currently taking place within the cast section of this article. Please make your views known, I will be in a second...  drewmunn  talk  15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment VasOling, please do not reinstate content that has been removed due to consensus. The right action to take at this time would be opening a discussion on the talk page. As it happens, the edits you are making are partially against consensus, partially factually incorrect. I shall not comment on the existence of spaces before and after the slash, although I know much discussion has gone into this. However, I'll happily explain why your other changes should not be in the article. Firstly, Alfred is a known character. He has a surname and an article. That article is not located at Alfred, but Alfred Pennyworth. Neeson is credited as Ducard, and that is therefore how we name him. His name may not actually be R'as, so linking that as his name is OR, and consensus has been reached to credit him as Ducard. Please don't change this without first reaching a new consensus here.  drewmunn  talk  15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not edit Alfred, I think you have me mistaken for someone else. And if I did edit that portion it was probably on accident and I apologize if that's the case. Second of all, thank you for informing that I am against the "consensus", however, let me say my piece. It is established in the movie that Liam Neeson is in fact Ra's al Ghul. I never claimed that Ra's al Ghul is his real name, since its a title. The Ducard persona was created as a diversion to shift focus on his decoy (Ken Watanabe). Bruce even mentions that he used "cheap parlor tricks" to conceal his true identity, and proceeds to call him Ra's. I know that he is credited as Ducard, but it is revealed that he is the real Ra's al Ghul, is he not? Claiming that I am factually incorrect is ridiculous. He was even credited as Ra's al Ghul in the Dark Knight Rises, not Ducard. Just because he's credited as Ducard at the end of the movie does not mean we are limited to that. Case in point, in the last two installments in Nolan's Batman trilogy, Christian Bale was credited simply as Bruce Wayne, not Batman. Does that mean that on those pages we can't credit Christian Bale as Batman? No. That would be absurd. Another example, on the Dark Knight Rises page, Marion Cotillard is credited as Talia al Ghul/Miranda Tate (Miranda Tate is her alias), even though in the movie she is credited as Miranda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Miranda Tate was credited as Miranda Tate in the article, other users coming in doing stupid things is not something to emulate. Neeson is introduced as Ducard, credited as Ducard, he's Ducard for 1h40m, plot revelations don't affect the cast list.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not "stupid" as you call it, its fact. Miranda Tate is Talia and should be credited as such. Same goes for Ra's. I can see if they never actually called Liam Neeson's character Ra's al Ghul or ever mentioned the name Ra's al Ghul, but the fact of the matter is that he is Ra's al Ghul and was called that in the film. Also, Liam Neeson's portrayal matches the characteristics of Ra's' comic book counterpart more so than Ducard's. It would be fine if Neeson was credited as Ducard *slash* Ra's al Ghul, but it is simply misleading to credit him as Ducard without mentioning Ra's al Ghul. -VasOling
Accorrding to the edit log your changes did include altering Alfred's entry. Anyway, our consensus and convention denotes that we credit him as Ducard. If you wish to change this, feel free to start an RfC.  drewmunn  talk  06:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see why Neeson's character would be named Ducard, however, it's not consistent with how similar situations were handled. Ken Watanabe is introduced and credited as Ra's al Ghul, but the cast section here credits him as Ra's al Ghul's decoy. On the Iron Man 3 page, Ben Kingsley is said to play Trevor Slattery, even though the end credits identify him as the Mandarin. Why are Watanabe and Kingsley given the real identities of their characters, while Neeson's character name comes from the credits? Saying Neeson portrayed Ducard isn't consistent with the rest of this page as well as other Batman related pages. The plot summary says Neeson is Ra's al Ghul, Ra's al Ghul's entry says Neeson portrayed him, and The Dark Knight Rises page says Neeson is Ra's al Ghul. At the very least, Neeson's character description should mention he's really Ra's al Ghul. Bluerules (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend I have an answer for that, and never even thought to check the credits for Wanatabe's character. As consensus currently denotes we credit him as Ducard, I say a sentence at least in his character description should mention his Ghul-ness.  drewmunn  talk  18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The answer to all is simple Sonic, those are not this article or this film. How he is credited in The Dark Knight Rises has no bearing on how he is credited here. If Robin had existed in each film and gone from Dick Grayson to Robin to NIghtwing with each respective entry, his character here would not be credited as Nightwing. Neeson is introduced as Ducard, he portrays Ducard for 1h40m and a late plot revelation modifies his identity which is related to the plot. If Kingsley is credited as The Mandarin he should be listed as The Mandarin, it's how he is advertised, how he is portrayed/introduced, and for someone who has not seen the film not read the plot section, seeing the cast listing would be confusing. Character entries for Ra's ah ghul are not this film either. I imagine Ken Watanabe is written as it is because otherwise it would say Ken Watanabe as Ra's ah Ghul, Ra's ah Ghul's decoy. In summary, being pedantic and pointing to other things doing things wrong is not an excuse to perpetuate it, which was the first thing I said in here even though it remains ignored. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I discounted the other film stuff, it's just Wanatabe's that I felt was odd, but I agree with you, it would read strange. However, as far as we know, he is R'as for as long as Ducard is Ducard, so that confused me.  drewmunn  talk  06:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wanatabe being credited as Ra's al Ghul's decoy and the plot summary saying Neeson is the real Ra's al Ghul are on this article. If credits dictated the name of Neeson's character here, the same guideline should apply to Wanatabe. Seeing as the end credits only said Wanatabe played Ra's al Ghul and made no mention of him being a decoy, we wouldn't have to worry about him being described as "Ra's ah Ghul, Ra's ah Ghul's decoy". We'd just say he's Ra's al Ghul. We currently aren't saying Neeson played both Ducard and Ra's al Ghul, after all. If anything though, that's evidence of why we shouldn't rely on only credit names; doing so creates awkward and inconsistent descriptions. Regarding potential confusion that could stem from differing names, allow me to provide a personal example. I had not seen Iron Man 3 nor read the plot summary when I saw Kingsley credited as Trevor Slattery instead of the Mandarin in the cast section. However, this did not confuse me in the slightest due to the character description, which explained Slattery was hired by Aldrich Killian to pose as the Mandarin. This cast list, on the other hand, will likely confuse readers who haven't seen the film for two reasons. The first is Ducard's description, which says "he trains Bruce in martial arts", and then has Goyer and Nolan describe him as a villain. Nothing written before Goyer's and Nolan's comments make note of the negative things he intends to do. All he did was train Bruce Wayne, isn't that a good thing? As a result, the description sounds disjointed. The second is Wanatabe being said to play Ra's al Ghul's decoy, when the cast section makes no prior mention of Ra's al Ghul, let alone explain who he is. The Robin/Nightwing analogy is not accurate because Neeson actually is Ra's ah Ghul during the events of Batman Begins, whereas Dick Grayson's alias differs during his adventures. It doesn't matter who he is for most of the film, it doesn't matter if the revelation comes late, he's still truly Ra's al Ghul. Even this article says so.
As for the "being pedantic and pointing to other things doing things wrong is not an excuse to perpetuate it" remark, that's not what VasOling and myself are doing. We consider our examples to be the correct way to handle these situations. Just because you believe something is wrong, does not mean it actually is wrong. Believing something to be right doesn't mean it's right either, but I'm willing to argue why these examples are right and what's taken place here is wrong. Bluerules (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Henri Ducard

The first name should not be removed, regardless whatever he's been mentioned or not. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have swapped it back to pre-changes for now, because no change in consensus was demonstrated.  drewmunn  talk  17:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that the first name Henri was removed and that Ra's al Ghul should also be kept there as well. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, but the change to Ra's was against procedure and hadn't been picked up.  drewmunn  talk  21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FA

So how far are we from FA quality? Randomuser112 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're close. The article is dependent on a lot of online sources which tend to be contemporary. There are introspective print sources that assess the film in retrospect that could be referenced here. See Talk:Batman Begins/references. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Erik; beyond the several structural and content issues, we still have pips over the content of the Lede - never a good sign. It is good, however, that you are looking towards moving the article in that direction, RandomUser112. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman_Begins/Archive_4&oldid=1136551797"