Jump to content

Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Irradiated Bills

In the beginning of the film, Batman scans some "irradiated bills" he said he gave to Gordon. What are these "irradiated bills" and what's their use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.154.116 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Damning with faint praise

For all its awards (over 40, I think), immense critical acclaim, and appearances in end-of-year and deace lists, The Dark Knight was not cited as being well-received, only recieving 'to favourable reviews' (I think some films with lukewarm reviews also reached that consensus, and a very highly acclaimed film like TDK should get a more postive consensus) in the description and nothing at all in the reception section. Considering Wikipedia often gives 'opened to acclaim' or 'received overwhelmingly positive reviews' to any film with a 90% or more on RT, I will take the liberty of editing it in my new account in due time.

Agreed. I think you are right, anything with a rating of over 90% on RT should be termed 'received overwhelmingly positive reviews', or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thea thea thea (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thriller

The Dark Knight was a thriller. Look at the definition.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Knight is more of an action film. 201.43.148.181 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's an action thriller film. 78.2.80.72 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think you could call it a thriller. It was lacking that aura of menece that most thrillers have.--Thea thea thea (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Crime vs. Action

I guess this needs some discussion. I was making my rounds on pending changes and accepted an edit that changed "action films" to "crime films" because it made sense to me. However I see others are reverting it. Rather than letting this turn into the first pending changes edit war, let's discuss one vs. the other. Admittedly, I've never seen the film (yes, I know, blasphemy) so I can't really make a good argument either way. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, while strictly speaking it is both, The Dark Knight has much more in common with the great tradition of crime and mob films (a la The Godfather) than it does action films (a la Spider-Man 2).~ZytheTalk to me! 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because that's so debatable I am quite ok with it just saying that it is an superhero film in genre. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, it should simply be termed as a superhero, or comic book movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thea thea thea (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful with "comic book movie", that covers a lot of genres - Road to Perdition (period drama, crime, mafia, road, and arguably neo-noir), American Splendor (biopic, comedy/drama), Ghost World (coming of age, teen, buddy), Constentine (horror), and 300 (fantasy adventure, epic) are examples of this.
FWIW though, "superhero" can generally be looked at as a specific type of action film, making "superhero action film" redundant. Calling it a crime film though feels like a strech.
- J Greb (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool

The article notes that the Liverpool, mainly the waterfront, was scouted as a possible filming location; do we know if any filming actually took place in the city and where it appears in the movie?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne IS Batman

The plot summary doesn't actually make it clear that Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person. This piece of information is central to the plot, so it should be mentioned in the plot summary; we shouldn't assume the reader knows this. I'll leave it to an editor who has seen the film more recently than I have to decide how best to work this in. Eljayess (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gambol

The Joker did not kill Gambol in the Dark Knight. You can see Gambol later in the movie handcuffed and being put into a police cruiser. Confirmed by a quick glimpse of a scar to his face (mouth). Vicestrike (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On the note of deaths, Dent did not kill both corrupt cops. He spared Ramirez. That's actually extremely important and central to Dent's character, so it should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.148.108 (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat

Can someone add Categorry:American crime drama films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.177.35 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maroni

Maroni dying is unknown, and given that Two-Face wasn't deterred much by the crash (and was very unlikely to have gotten medical aid), its likely that Maroni survived with a medium level of injury. 120.146.78.183 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Can somebody change the sentence "By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 top reviews from mainstream critics, calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews." to "By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating in the 0-100 range based on reviews from top mainstream critics, calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews." Rough Melody (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I'm assuming the change in emphasis is because Metacritic scores actually do fill the 0-100 range as described at Metacritic. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Sequel section of the article, include, at the beginning, the {{Main}} template to The Dark Knight Rises, as in

Main article: The Dark Knight Rises

83.132.77.180 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is it possible for me to add receptions from Japanese movie critics and award sites? I got some with me. Ominae (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight — Most people who search for "The Dark Knight" at Wikipedia are looking for the very popular recent movie. I'm positive traffic statistics would bear this out. It seems silly to have a disambiguation page with the movie, a nickname for the main character in that movie, some theme park rides, a comic, etc. CWenger (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose there is no dab page at The Dark Knight, it is a redirect, so moving it would be inappropriate. Further, "The Dark Knight" is also a very popular name for Batman, which also happens to be the usage the movie takes it from. The use of the moniker "The Dark Knight" also predates the movie, so references to the term predating "Batman Begins" would not be referring to the sequel movie, but the character itself, as do many references after the film was named. Further the new film The Dark Knight Rises also refers to the character in the title, and is not a direct reference to the preceding movie either. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: For clarity I suppose I should have specified my move proposal is:
The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight
Dark Knight → Dark Knight (disambiguation)
Is that clearer? –CWenger (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Do you honestly think many people search Wikipedia with the nickname "The Dark Knight" hoping to get to the Batman article? That seems like the perfect place to use the For the... template. –CWenger (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MOSDAB. We do not as a rule reorganize the encyclopedia's structure to reflect current trends. If we did, we'd have to move all these pages again next year when The Dark Knight Rises becomes the most popular search target. It may seem silly to you, but the fact that we have all those pages is exactly the reason we have disambiguation pages. -- RoninBK T C 07:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Plenty of other articles using The Dark Knight as a title, so using that as the disambig page makes it easier to spot links that go to the wrong article. IE - anything currently linking to The Dark Knight shouldn't. Lugnuts (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On the grounds of recentism. If you argue what you're arguing then I would argue that just as many people searching for "Batman" are really looking for the Michael Keaton film. There are too many topics for Batman that share the name "The Dark Knight". As for "The Dark Knight Rises", nothing currently shares that exact title so it's comparison is moot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am kind of neutral about it but if I had to choose I would say it's fine the way it is. Similiar to what WP:Broke says. Jhenderson 777 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I have opposed in the past due to recentism, I no longer think this is a valid argument. It has been more than two years since the film came out in 2008, and the article remains highly trafficked, far above all the other topics titled "The Dark Knight". The guidelines say, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term." Another point raised in the past and in the present is that "The Dark Knight" is one of Batman's monikers. While this is true, I think CWenger makes a good point above in asking, "Do you honestly think many people search Wikipedia with the nickname 'The Dark Knight' hoping to get to the Batman article?" As a moniker, it is merely definitive. There is nothing encyclopedic to add to the fact; its presence on the disambiguation page is essentially a soft redirect to Batman. Based on the traffic statistics and the frequent use of the term in direct reference to the film, I endorse the move. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:TITANIC walk victor falk talk 22:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Victor, if this film was titled Batman, then I would support the comic book character as the primary topic over the film. Here, we are dealing with a moniker, not topics with matching names. The Titanic had her own set of nicknames, after all. The essay does not apply to the variations we have here. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning. "Dark Knight" is both a Batman circumlocution and an official film name, about the same character. This is the source of potential confusion needing disambiguation. For the analogy to hold, there would have to be an article about a movie called The Unsinkable Ship. walk victor falk talk 22:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It is worth noting that WP:TITANIC was created by Victor on January 20th and is not reflective of any editor's opinion beyond Victor's own. The logic does not apply here because this film does not share the same name as the title character; as I said before, if this film was titled Batman, then even its popularity should not make it the primary topic over the title character's article. This article being based on a nickname is a distinct separation. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Numbers are not the end all and be all of determining what is correct; see also Wikipedia:BIG#Arbitrary_quantity. We as editors have to make judgements as how to interpret those figures. You're implying that all people typing "the dark knight" want to find the movie, which hardly can be the case. walk victor falk talk 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not implying that all people searching for "The Dark Knight" want to find the film. The majority of them clearly do, however. If you look at Dark Knight, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight (film), it's clear that the trend of the disambiguation term and the redirect term are in line with the film article. Article traffic statistics can definitely be considered, so WP:BIG does not apply here (as it applies to AFDs, which this is not). The general criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is what people are most likely to look for above all the other topics. Are you saying that the film is not what people are most likely to look for, more than two years after the film's release? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'm mystified by all the opposition to this one. All of the other entries on the dab page are derivatives of the film with vastly less importance or other entities that merely have "The Dark Knight" as part of their title (which, in some cases, means they shouldn't even be at the dab page at all). And what's with the recentism claims here? Is there some as yet unnamed 18th century Dark Knight waiting to have an article written about him? Does anybody seriously think that readers would use Batman's three-word nickname as a search term for the character and not just "Batman"? (And just in case the answer is yes, that's what hatnotes are for.) — AjaxSmack 03:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support does anyone seriously think someone searching for "The Dark Knight" isn't looking for the film? Capt. Colonel (edits) 07:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batman went to rescue Dent, not Rachel

One sentence says he went to rescue Rachel (wrong), the next one says he rescues Dent (right). Pretty glaring mistake; please fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.180.214 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm watch the movie, he wanted to save her but the joker gave the wrong location. Capt. Colonel (edits) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's made clear that Joker tricked him from what's currently written... "Batman goes after Rachel, while Gordon and the police go to rescue Dent ... Batman finds Dent and rescues him, even as Dent begs him to save Rachel instead." Suggestions for slight re-write? It Figures. (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.18.30.79, 20 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add "superhero drama film" in lede and add cat "2000s drama films". This is a drama film. 189.18.30.79 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

189.18.30.79 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The links to other languages pages seem to be all wrong, they don't link to the movie page. A good list might be found for example on the French version.

79.113.53.69 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; the interwiki links on {{Christopher Nolan}} were being included. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the first section it says that elements of another story were 'cannibalized'. I'm sure the writer meant 'canonized' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.242.134 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalized means that they took from it, whereas "canonized" means that it was made official in the comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

More critics, less criticism per each

The only negative criticism in the reception section comes from a single critic named David Denby. The articles compensates by giving him way to much to say. Instead of giving undue weight to one guy we need to get several negative reviews and try to summarize their complaints.-83.251.160.139 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Action film?

This film barely has any action. 187.35.36.109 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. Most of the action scenes are long. Really long. 10-25 minutes of continuous action, at some points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joest23 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Universal/Critical Acclaim

I don't understand the problem with listing this movie as receiving one of the titles. A 94% on Rotten Tomatoes should be enough, but either way, we've listed other films such as Airplane!, Spider-Man 2 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 with the same title.

I'm not sure why. We should never say "universal acclaim" because there is always somebody somewhere that dissents. I don't see a problem with using "near-universal acclaim" though. And why do you capitalize it? It's not like an award called "Universal Acclaim". –CWenger (^ • @) 23:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is one place. It doesn't poll every critic, it takes a sample size. So, "univeral" is inaccurate because you could never actually say that and those other pages should reflect that as well. As for "near universal" or even "critical", that's a subjective interpretation of the data. We're not allowed to interpret data that way, we're supposed to be neutral observers. The neutral thing to do is stay objective and just point out that the film received positive reviews. The "94%" will tell the reader the average level of approval.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is "near universal" more subjective than "positive"? Only that it is allowing less room for error as far as I can tell. But if a film had more marginal ratings, say 65% at Rotten Tomatoes, where do you draw the line between "positive" and "mixed"? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't typically draw such a line. I usually go straight to the percentage and say "The Dark Knight had a 94% approval rating". Then I leave it at that. That removes all subjectivity out of it completely. "Near univeral" is beyond subjective, it's also inaccurate because you cannot verify the "universality" because you cannot poll every critic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly agree that it's better to just go straight to the aggregated rankings. But we'll have to agree to disagree on "near-universal critical acclaim". –CWenger (^ • @) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Bignole, but do you have a problem with this movie? Is that why you're making a mountain out of a mole hill for this? Can we honestly list it as critically accclaimed and leave it at that?173.79.209.215 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
A problem with the movie? No, I loved the movie. That doesn't change the fact that "critical acclaim" is a highly subjective term, one that is extremely hard to actually verify. You're basing it on a Rotten Tomatoes rating. First, RT doesn't poll every critic, so you cannot generalize 200+ critics back to the critic population as "universal acclaim" or "critical acclaim". Secondly, RT doesn't poll outside of the US, which leaves an extremely large portion of critics not even measured. Lastly, if you've read some of the reviews you'll notice that a lot of them though listed as "approval" are closer to mixed in their analysis. Saying "critical acclaim" or "univeral acclaim" suggests that most critics found basically nothing wrong with the film. That isn't true at all. It's much better to just say "there was a 94% approval rating from critics", because it removes all subjectivity out of the equation as Wikipedia is not supposed to be interpretating data like that regardless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be the only one to think this. I suggest an WP:RFC.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not just use the sort of wording that's typical in film articles on WP; something along the lines of "in general, the film received positive reviews" or "in general the film was received positively by critics". Including something like "in general" protects against anyone interpreting this too literally, and leaves room to add "But so-and-so did criticize the film for its something-or-other" to add balance. And while there is of course a small degree of OR (in determining what draws the line between "generally positive" and something else), that is something we must to some extent commit all the time when editing Wikipedia; making some informed judgments about and drawing conclusions from a bunch of sources is what makes this an encyclopedia rather than a review aggregator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
To Valkyrie - Feel free to request comment from WP:FILM or WP:MOSFILM.
To Rjanag - If I have to add any "comment", that is typically the way that I do it. As simply saying "positive reviews" is less subjective (and far less POV-y) than saying "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim", which sounds more like we're trying to sell the film than discuss it from an encyclopedic standpoint.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case, why not argue on the second part of Harry Potter 7? Or Airplane? Why stick with just The Dark Knight, unless you have some sort of personal issue with the film...--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the other guys, but I don't have those articles on my watchlist and I do this one. I won't be held responsible for every other article in the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, do I have to remind you that I actually like this film (own it and have watched it probably 5 times since I bought it...plus seeing it in theaters). I'm where Rjanag is. I don't watchlist those film pages. The fact that they are probably using terminology that is both inaccurate, subjective, and possibly not a neutral stance has no bearing on this page. There are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are not a reflection of how things are intended to be, that doesn't mean we change all the other pages to mirror those inaccuracies. This page I do watch, and this page I do want to reflect a health understanding of Wikipedia's philosophy on how to write about entertainment based subjects that are consequently critiqued by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals around the world.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As there is no consensus here on using "universal acclaim", and as there is a broader discussion over guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception, I am adjusting that hyperbolic, non-neutral phrase and inviting other editors to the discussion of this topic at that Project page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Time

My DVD clocks 145 min. instead of the 152 min. as stated here is there a different version or is this normal ? In fact most of my DVD's are at leased 5 min. shorter than stated on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See my response to your post at Talk:Star Trek (film)#Time. --Ckatzchatspy 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

mistake in the plot

The first paragraph has, "Batman and Lieutenant Jim Gordon decide to include new district attorney Lieutenant Jim Gordon[...]" That second "Lieutenant Jim Gordon" should be "Harvey Dent" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.123.170 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Still no consensus, and no new rationale since the previous two failed move requests. UtherSRG (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – The film is definitely the main topic. On the disambig page Dark Knight there are no other articles with this exact title that aren't directly related to this movie (the soundtrack and cancelled video game). Also, I just did a google search for "The Dark Knight" and every single result on the first page was related to this movie. Nine times out of ten (at least) people searching for The Dark Knight are going to be looking for this movie, so I think it's safe to say this is the main topic. --Boycool (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Chechen?

The character mentioned thrice in this article as Chechen got no introduction and was first mentioned as "Maroni and the Chechen". Reading the article however, with not yet having seen the film, I have no idea which character is Chechen nor whether this nationality is actually relevant to the summary.

83.119.101.171 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the same person who made this section, and I logged in and tried to find the version where 'the Chechen' was added, but no luck. I was trying to find whether a previous version had a more obvious synonym. FrisianDude (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "The Chechen" is the mobster's name. That's what he is known as, and there is no given name. I've went and checked the history, and the revisions all suggest that the mobster is known as "The Chechen". - M0rphzone (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lucious smiling

It is necessary to include the fact that Lucious smiles as the surveillance machine detonates. Including this conveys the character's resolve as of the end of the film; i.e. it brings closure to the notion that he will resign if the machine stays. Lucious' ultimatum is already mentioned earlier in the plot summary, so the reader can see what his smiling implies. It is necessary to wrap up this loose end for the reader in the course of the plot summary. ArtistScientist (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - How do you know that it conveys the resolve of the character? It's a smile. Lucious stated that he would leave if the machine stayed. We point out the machine is destroyed, thus we don't need a qualifier that he is smiling that it is destroyed because we've already resolved the problem by just mentioning that it no longer exists. The smile is ancillary. It adds nothing but someone's opinion that we need to go out of our way to say that Lucious "won" some argument. The fact that the machine was destroyed as soon as he put the password in shows that he was never going to stay in the first place, thus his argument was moot to begin with. Regardless, we state that he won't stay if it does. We state that the machine is destroyed. Thus, we've already resolved his conflict without some silly qualifier that "he smiles".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Best Picture" Snub

Can somebody say wether any publications thought the Dark Knight was snubbed for "Best Picture"? Hugh Jackman mentioned the snub in the opening number.

--111.220.194.126 (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Lachie Bennett - Lewis

FA nomination

I think that this article will be a good candidate for FA nomination.Since i have not been a regular editor here i thought i should suggest it on the talk page.Thanks. Ayanosh (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice, do me and Bignole get an award for improving the plot? haha.--JTBX (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Billing of Christian Bale

Bignole reverted this edit without explanation. How can we list Bale as playing Bruce Wayne/Batman in the cast section when the credits of the film bill his character (more eloquently) as "Bruce Wayne"? It seems like a perpetuation of the arbitrary and somewhat juvenile idea that a comic book character becomes a different person when it wears certain clothing. We should list the cast as the movie does, without bringing our own conceptions of the character into it. ArtistScientist (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comic book heroes/villains wth dual roles are always listed in the cast section with a slash and the two names. Pick another comic book movie and take a look. If you don't like the style then go to the film project page. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a different "character", per say, but it is a different persona for Bruce Wayne. He does go by a different alias that, for the most part, no one knows that it is Bruce Wayne. Additionally, when the plot section discusses Bruce and Batman, a reader is not going to get confused and assume that some stunt double did all of Batman's scenes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

This is an American - British production and the country of origin should reflect that. http://industry.bfi.org.uk/15747 Nuhouse (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The character of Batman is owned by an American company (DC Comics). The primary studio behind this film, and who actually owns the film rights to the character, is an American company. That makes the film an American film. The fact that there were other studios involved in producing the film does not make it anything less than an American film. It is not uncommon to receive backing from multiple studios, even outside the original country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The film director is British, 2 of the producers are British, many of the main actors including Bale, Oldman and Caine are British, the UK was used as a filming location for many scenes in the film. Added to the fact that Syncopy is British and the Dark Knight is listed as a British film by a former UK government department, the UK Film Council, I would suggest that makes the film an American British production. Nuhouse (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The nationality of the director and actors is irrelevant, as they do not own the film in anyway. They filmed more in American cities than they did anywhere else, not that filming locations mean anything (Superman Returns primarily filmed in Australia, but it isn't considered an Australian film). All films are registered in every country that they are released in, as well as every country and helps to produce it. That, again, does not constitute ownership in anyway. Syncopy has no say in what happens to The Dark Knight at the end of the day, because it is ultimately owned solely by Warner Bros.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're telling me that the nationality of the film is down to the company who owns it then there are a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies on Wikipedia. Because there are plenty of British films for example, which are ultimately owned by American studios which are listed as being British. If that is the case, then please provide evidence that's what Wikipedia requires when it comes to a films nationality and I'll happily accept that. If not, then it would appear that all the things I have listed, such as the nationality of the production company, filming location, nationality of key personnel are all important when it comes to assessing the films nationality, which would again, make this an American-British production.Nuhouse (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that have been previous discussions about this on this page. Please consult them (they may be archived). I don't know what films you are talking about that are owned by American companies, but are actually British films. The only conflicting films I could possibly think of where we might rest with a "dual" ownership would be the Harry Potter films and the James Bond films because there are 2 separate licenses at work. For Harry Potter, a British company owns the character(s) and the stories, where as an American company owns the film rights. The same for Bond. If you have others then I'd have to see them to see why they are listing things the way that they are. There is typically a reason for everything, including the reason that some people have mistakenly identified the country of origin as the wrong country. Either way, you're more than welcome to request additional opinons on this matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rank as a highest-grossing film

Currently the article lists the Dark Knight as the eleventh highest grossing film of all time, this article lists it as number 12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelatinprodigy (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

this is an American Film

Warner Bros Are American Studios And They Have The Worldwide Rights Of This Film Which makes it An American Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.219.168 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Filming

Filming took place in Hong Kong from November 6 to 11, 2007, at various locations in the CBD, including the International Finance Centre, Hong Kong's tallest building at that time(The tallest building in Hong Kong now is International Commerce Centre), for the scene where Batman captures Lau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.35.23 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2012

British film

78.144.186.114 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done You have not explained your request. —HueSatLum 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error in plot synopsis

Please change "They laughably refuse when Joker offers to kill Batman" to "They laughingly refuse when Joker offers to kill Batman".

The plot synopsis currently says "They laughably refuse when Joker offers to kill Batman". Use of the word 'laughably' here implies that their reaction, whatever it may be, is laughable to the viewer. This may be the case, but it seems that the correct word here should be 'laughingly'. "They laughingly refuse when Joker offers to kill Batman," tells us that their reaction was to laugh. This makes the statement factual as opposed to a value judgement. Grrenth (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

minor spelling error: "ticks" vs "tics"

Please change "ticks" to "tics" at the end of the section on Aaron Eckhart in Characters, in the sentence 'Nolan told Eckhart to not make Dent's Two-Face persona "jokey with slurping sounds or ticks."[44]'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.194.231 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Englehart

Englehart's self-published website is not a reliable source for the claim that Dark Detective "reportedly" influenced the film. His claim is ridiculous, but it can be cited; a reliable source is needed to justify the current language. Alternatively, we could make clear that the source is Englehat himself, not a neutral observer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Absense of MPAA rating [Motion Pictures Association of America]

After scanning this article I see no mention of the rating. I think that's an important fact.

IMDB puts the rating at the top of its articles. WP often omits it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/ The Dark Knight Rises PG 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.250.57 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We only include MPAA ratings if they are notable for some reason (such as a film fighting to get one rating over another or the first instance of a particular rating). Basically, almost any article on Wikipedia that has an MPAA rating included probably shouldn't have it. After all, given how many films are released in multiple countries, we'd end up making articles ridiculously long including all of them. See WP:FILMRATING for more info. Millahnna (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Millahnna. We have to remember that this is the English Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. A film's ratings will differ with each country's societal norms. So we need context for the film, and we actually have some: 1 and 2, for example. That is the kind of information that could be used, but we cannot go around and stamp articles with a mere PG-13 rating or whatever. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Two minor grammatical errors

"real Joker's men then rescues the hostages" should be "real Joker's men then rescue the hostages" and "deciding their fates by flipping coin" should be "deciding their fates by flipping a coin". 58.161.225.89 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody made these corrections. Primogen (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Death

We should mention Bruce's supposed death!--79.69.106.144 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet it is mentioned in the correct article - namely the article for Dark Knight Rises. Medleystudios72 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2012

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to do so Mike Cline (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – OK, this film is four years old (so no recentism) and yet it is still being viewed an unbelievable amount of times. People have requested it be moved many times before, and I REALLY think it should be moved now. It is unquestionably the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In October 2012
  • Support it's clear that even those opposed to this believe 'Dark Knight' is a batman reference, and it also appears clear to me that 'The Dark Knight' refers to the 2008 film. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The numbers say it all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The page move makes sense now, but that's because the film is fresh in everyone's minds. But given the character of Batman, which will likely continue to grow, evolve, reboot, etc. in continued years, which will continually be known as "The Dark Knight", this particular film will wane in its renown (Remember how everyone thought the Jack Nicholson "Batman" movie was the greatest thing since sliced bread? And where are we now with that?) Yea, I'm CRYSTAL balling it a bit, but at the same time, it is not an unreasonable expectation that the character will remain more notable than this specific film. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    If that does happen, it can be discussed some time in the future, but not right now. Unreal7 (talk)
    • It's not a question of "if" but "when". Yes, it may be for many years, but that still makes this only a temporary move. I consider back when Avatar came out and there was people that wanted to make that the page that sat at Avatar due to its popularity at the time, but it was still realized that the metaphysical concept of Avatar was much more timeless, and thus the move didn't happen. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • When there are conflicts between names, that's WP's software solution to resolve conflicts. It's far far far from being amaturish. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The inability the support multiple instances of a title is a glitch in our software. The parenthetical might be needed for processing or searching, but it certainly looks amaturish when it appears in enormous type on top of a widely read page. AllMovie or Britannica don't yield center stage to processing cruft. Kauffner (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense argument as its not a glitch, its a way of dealing with unique identifiers without wasting processing power. In fact, if this move goes, that means a different page will have some parenthetical disambig title (since we already have a "The Dark Knight" page. Again, other big budget successful films are at disambig titles: Avatar (film), The Avengers (2012 film), The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) for example. Also, it's a non-argument to suggest the film page has more importance than any of the other pages; all pages on WP are valued; big-budget popular films don't get special claims over any other type. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The Dark Knight is a redirect now. So yes, this page can be moved without any other page getting a parenthetical. A parenthetical should be added only when "natural disambiguation is not possible," per WP:PRECISION. In this case, we can put everything under its actual name. As this is the ideal, there is no need for any kind of disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But it's not. "The Dark Knight" has long been a term associated with Batman, with the film capturing that essence, but as evidenced by the Dark Knight disamb page, there are lots of other terms it could mean. The film is not more important than any of these so it is fine where it is at. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, but
(a) I don't see in the above a response to the actual question I asked.
(b) The film "The Dark Knight (film)" cannot by definition be more important than "the Dark Knight" himself, see:

(The) Dark Knight is a common nickname for the DC Comics superhero Batman. It may refer to:

See also search string "The Dark Knight" in GB per WP:IRS, the majority don't refer to the film but to [T]he Dark Knight himself. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The move would give the article on the film a more professional-looking title and would therefore benefit readers of that article. You couldn't figure that one out? IRS, IRS... I think we have other guidelines too. It's not about how the term is used, but rather about which article most directly addresses the topic readers who type in "The Dark Knight" as a search term are likely to be searching for. It's not like "Batman himself" is an educational topic. Kauffner (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
More "professional-looking"? Exactly how do you propose to eliminate all disambiguation from every disambiguated article on Wikipedia to make them more "professional looking" considering all the naming conflicts? Wikipedia doesn't support multiple articles with the same name at the same location, which is why pages are disambiguated. Since the most similar instance in "professional" references would be ships or genealogical gazetteers, which are divided by date, then the film should be disambiguated by date. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In this case, there is no naming conflict. So I don't see what purpose disambiguation is supposed to serve. As far as what to do about naming conflicts in general, a "reduced size" option for disambiguators has been proposed for the next iteration of WikiMedia software. Both IMDB and AllMovie put a year in parenthesis after the title of every movie — that certainly works for me. Kauffner (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as with every other request made. And suggest a moratorium on page move requests. There are hundreds of articles with the (film) title, it doesn't stop people finding the correct page, in fact given the amount of hits to this page it suggests that the article is easy to find. Give up on the move requests and actually make some effort to improve the page. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of this being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I believe the discussion is being skewed a bit by hardcore Batman fans, who despite of their enthusiasm for the character are a minority when it comes to Wikipedia readers. Aurorion (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with User talk:Aurorion that it's likely Batman fans are objecting to this change on subjective grounds rather than taking into account WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Hopefully when this is closed their actual comments will be taken into account, not just the number of them objecting because consensus is not reached by voting. Zarcadia (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-fan of Batman (why is fanness a criteria?), I am not ignorant of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the issue is that the string "[T]he Dark Knight" in Google Books [users can use left click button on mouse to view more than first page] is WP:PRIMARILY the character himself not the film. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
On GBooks, book titles come up first. So you get a page worth of puns like Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. Kauffner (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and older move discussions do not matter with regards to building a current consensus. Voting 'oppose' when there's 257,558 views for the film vs. 11,000 for the disambiguation makes absolutely no sense to me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Dark Knight primarily, and explicitly refers to the character Batman - and the film is about Batman, so. Why should it instead refer to a film about the (titular) character, rather than the character itself? || Tako (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I need to say something here. I know Batman is often referred to as "the Dark Knight", which is why I also mentioned the traffic for "Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight", and that means that, even with those two totals combined, that comes out as not even 18,000 views. Whereas hundrdeds of thousands of others were looking for the film because they typed in "The Dark Knight (film)". Unreal7 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chicago Filming Location

The Two-Face bar scene was filmed at the Twin Anchors bar on N. Sedgewick.

http://www.twinanchorsribs.com/content/our-restaurant

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-06/entertainment/ct-ent-0907-focus-superman-filming-20110906_1_film-publicist-product-placement-film-scout

Dyna88 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters

Further information: Talk:Batman Begins § Proposal:List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters

--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Informal RfC: The Joker

Hi all. You may have noticed the latest (as of now) edits to the main article are regarding the way we convey the fate of the Joker. Connor Behan altered the article, and I reverted those changes in favour of the original version. However, after he reverted back, I chose not to get into an edit war. As such, I'm here for your opinions on which version you prefer. The original version was:

The Joker is then taken into custody.

Connor's edit was made because he felt that the Joker's fate is not known. So, he substituted that sentence for:

The Joker is last seen restrained before the SWAT team.

Which do you prefer? My personal reasoning for preferring the original is that he is in police custody when we last see him. We never know what happened to him after the fact, but he is in their custody. I feel Connor's edit leans heavily on the fourth wall; we portray the plot in a way that's impartial and informative, but this tends closer to a retelling in fictional format. Anyway, I'm here for other peoples' opinions, so fire away. drewmunn talk 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to make sure that we don't assume anything about whether the cops do the right thing. I didn't think the use of the fourth wall was bad when I wrote it, but your objection on those grounds makes perfect sense. Could we change the wording to any of these alternatives? "The SWAT team arrives and confronts the Joker", "The Joker is unable to free himself before the SWAT team arrives" or even "The SWAT team arrives to take the Joker into custody." That way we are clear about the intent rather than the result. Connor Behan (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I never got back to you, I much prefer the alternative suggested by you; it provides leeway, and remains objective. Thanks! drewmunn talk 08:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 05-07-2013

Please change "including the International Finance Centre, Hong Kong's tallest building" to "including the International Finance Centre, Hong Kong's second tallest building". Thanks. --K.sanny (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite that change? drewmunn talk 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please give a reliable source. - Camyoung54 talk 21:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hope these will do as reliable sources, let me know if not: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=11, http://www.synotrip.com/hong-kong/shopping/international-finance-centre--ifc--649.shtml, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong K.sanny (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've taken the liberty of altering the wording slightly, stating that it was, at the time of filming, the tallest building. Thanks for pointing it out! drewmunn talk 08:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How the cast should be ordered

I don't want to cause a edit war here. But how the cast should be ordered in this article doesn't really matter. There is no consensus on how the cast should be ordered. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it is advisable for all to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The point of following the cycle is to see if one's edit will be contested, and if it is, to set up a discussion to make a case for the edit or to figure out a compromise. If necessary, other editors can be notified to determine a consensus, especially regarding a narrow issue such as this where there is not much room for flexibility. Secondly, I see that two time frames have been mentioned: Bluerules's ordering, which he says existed until February 2013, and a different ordering that existed since then. Is this correct? Also, Bluerules cited following the film credits for the ordering of the cast members. Was the ordering since last February based on the film poster or anything else? Per MOS:FILM#Cast, "Name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." I think that logic can be extended to a specific ordering. Let's hold off on changing the ordering until we can all make our points and counter-points. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
First off, I made a mistake on my part- the order I support was used until January 5. Anyways, the ordering since last January was based on the film's end credits. I've always argued in favor of using the ending credits as the basis for the order (unless they were alphabetical or by appearance) because they are an actual part of the film, whereas posters are promotional material. Additionally, the end credits provide a comprehensive cast listing, while the poster is limited to the biggest names. Bluerules (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That would make sense, though do you mean that the ordering until last January was based on the film's end credits? And after that, it was based on the poster credits? I assume you were trying to restore the ordering to what it was last January. I would be fine with ordering based on the end credits except for the caveats you mention. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the order used until January 5th was based on the ending credits. The current order is based on the poster and I was attempting to bring it back to its previous revision. Bluerules (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I am fine with following the end credits for ordering, though can it be articulated what the ordering is, if not alphabetical or by appearance? Is it generally considered prominence of the roles in descending order? I'll ping the others to see what they have to say. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, sometimes the ending cast credits can be seriously confusing in some film articles with the names are placed at and there are other small time actors who are above the names listed in the credits which are not on various film articles. I don't think movies that are list alphabetical or by appearance in end credits should be included because it can create confusion among readers. The movies with those kind of end credits should be listed by beginning credits. As for the others one, I think they should be listed by the listed by main actors in the poster while others on it should be listed by time of character appearances or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we can all agree not to use the end credits if it is alphabetical or by appearance. But are there cases where the end credits are neither but the small-time actors are at the top? Even if that is true, I do not think that is the situation here. Either ordering is fine by me, as neither ordering is detrimental to Wikipedia, but if we had to stick to one option, the end credits approach makes sense to me. Do you think the ordering of the end credits for The Dark Knight is problematic or not? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's strange that there are no specific guidelines in place for the ordering of cast lists. Perhaps we should bring it up at WikiProject Film and see if we can get some kind of site-wide consensus? —Flax5 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There are guidelines, list the infobox starring by the poster billing block if one is available, otherwise use the film end credits. If one is in place there's no reason to replace one with the other beyond a personal preference for people being listed higher in one version than the other. Being higher up in the list doesn't make you any more important than being ON the list, and if Harrison Ford was listed above Mark Hamill on the poster and in the end credits, it wouldn't make Hamill's role less notable to be listed number 2. There seems to be a misconception that the lists are based on a fan-girl like boy band rating of hottest to nottest, when it's a simple list and we use the billing block purely because it is the first available and it helps prevent the general implementation of favoritism by certain users to have something we can point to as the template for why the names are listed in the order. If the poster billing is in place, there is no reason to change it to film credits, and if you use film credits where do you cut off the list? Where you decide the cast stops being important? Or do you list them all ad infinitum like some Roman style orgy of names all writhing over each other, sweaty and greasy as they clamor for the top of the pile and the better angle? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just because something is in place does not mean it should not be changed. The cast section of Alex Cross said Jean Reno portrayed a character named "Leon Mercier". That is not correct, the real name of the character is Giles Mercier. Do we keep the incorrect information in the article because it's already there? Of course not. And no, being listed second does mean you're less important than the first billed performer. Silver medalists aren't more notable than their gold counterparts and it's the same thing with film. The top listed name is the first person the audience sees. He or she stands above the rest of the cast. TV Tropes has a page called Billing Displacement for a reason. Now when it comes to using the credit list, the ideal cut-off point would be where the characters start being identified by their occupations or characteristics instead of their names. Some films already have a cut-off point; Heat listed all the notable roles first, and then billed the rest by appearance. Others, like Zathura have relatively small cast lists, so no cut off is needed. Incidentally, posters have the opposite problem: they don't always include prominent actors. The billing block of Holes makes no mention of Khleo, who plays one of the most important characters in the film. Do we omit Khleo from the cast just because the poster did? Bluerules (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Knight/Archive_13&oldid=1136384786"